I can't comment on the digital signature laws of the various states, as I have not read them. However, the federal one does not make digital signatures any more valid than written ones. All it says is that no document may be invalidated because its signature is electronic rather than written.
To give an example: Under the Statute of Frauds, a contract for the sale of goods valued at over $500 must be in a signed writing to be enforceable (Uniform Commercial Code, sec. 2-201). Now, with the federal e-signature law, the writing can be signed electronically, and the contract will not be invalidated just because of the fact that it has an electronic signature.
This does not change any of the rules of proof in court. The electronic contract in the above example would still need to be authenticated in the same way as a paper contract.
A corporation cannot claim 5th amendment - AFAIK constitutional rights in the US extend only to humans
This is incorrect. Corporations can't claim protection under the self-incrimination clause (see Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201 (1988)), but they can claim protection under the double jeopardy clause (see United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564 (1977)).
Somewhat more relevant to this case, a corporation is entitled to due process of law. See Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984). For the non-lawyers, all three of these are US Supreme Court cases.
So, yes, if there is a liberty interest in being able to shop for a judge, Rambus can't lose that right without due process. However, they got due process, so there's no problem.
OK, Rambus has not been deprived of life or property, right? After all, they aren't alive, so they can't be deprived of life, and the ALJ has taken nothing of value from them. So, the only thing left is liberty. I strongly doubt that the ability to file a complaint before whatever judge you want is a cognizable liberty under the Fifth Amendment. Whether it is or not, though, Rambus had an opportunity to respond to the allegations and be heard, so due process is satisfied.
Remember, a judge can take lots of money and/or throw you in jail for contempt of court, with a lot less process than seems to have been given to Rambus here. You don't need a full-blown trial to support every restriction on what might be considered your rights.
Corporations do not give anybody the privilege of not being accountable for their actions. If I work for a corporation, and (say) run over somebody with the corporation's car while on corporate business, I can be personally sued (as can the corporation). The people that are protected are the shareholders. When you buy stock in a corporation, you stand to lose (potentially) whatever you invested, but you don't risk being personally liable for the corporation's debts.
Diesel can be a viable alternative to gasoline. Europe already knows this, but the US (and maybe North America in general) hasn't caught on.
Probably the best passenger car diesels available in the US are the current-production VW TDI models. There isn't much unusual from the driver's perspective--wait a few seconds (if needed) for the glow plugs to turn off before starting, and be sure to use diesel fuel instead of gas when you fill up. They aren't particularly noisy, smelly, or smoky. They have plenty of power--they aren't race cars by any stretch of the imagination, but they accelerate pretty well, and they hold speed through the mountains with no trouble at all. They also get in the neighborhood of 50 mpg. With the way fuel prices were here (Dayton, OH) last week, my Jetta TDI would cost less in fuel than a Honda Insight, though the gas prices have since dropped a little.
Another alternative to petroleum-based diesel is biodiesel, which has already been mentioned here a bit. It can be made from vegetable oil, and will work in any diesel engine. Currently, commercially-available biodiesel is more expensive than petrodiesel in the USA, but it's a potential option.
In fact only one of his ideas is currently impossible. Allowing multiple files with the same name could, and perhaps should, be allowed.
...and is, in fact, allowed in VMS (if I remember correctly, it's been a while since the MicroVAX that I used to use died). The first file with a given name gets filename;1 and the second gets filename;2 and so forth. Probably not exactly what he had in mind, but not too far from it.
I can bet she is not a product of the U.S. Public Education System.
I don't know about that. Paul D. Schreiber High School is part of the Port Washington Union Free School District, according to the 1999 profile. I can't tell for sure, but that kind of sounds like a public school to me...
This is an old thought experiment that has one flaw (see if you can spot it!)
I can think of a couple, not including inability of current technology to measure precisely enough:
The fraction may be reducible. Suppose, for example, that your very long number was equal to 1/2--you're screwed. This is an extreme case, but others might not be as noticeable. Particularly if we have a breakthrough in factoring large numbers, it's pretty likely that a 1.3-billion-digit number will have a factor.
Atomic size. An iron bar 1 cm square x 1 meter long is roughly 1.6e11 atoms long. This is based on about 7 mol/cm^3 of iron, 1 mol is 6e23 atoms, so 4.2e24 atoms/cm^3 of iron. Thus, a 1 cm cube should be (cube root of 4.2e24) 1.6e8 atoms on each side. It seems impossible that you'd be able to store more than an 11-digit number this way; the size of the iron atoms would prevent you from dividing the bar more finely. However, with a CD's worth of data, assuming 2 digits/byte, you need to resolve about 1.3 billion digits.
Marking and measurement technology, of course, are additional issues.
Seriously though -- and recognizing that the discussion which follows is slightly off the main thread topic --IIRC the limiting issue isn't whether or not you can pass a law that has retroactive effects, it's what those retroactive effects can be.
That much is right, but your example is somewhat mistaken. The only thing which constitutes an ex post facto law is one which either (1) criminalizes an action which was done before the law was enacted, or (2) increases the penalty for such an action.
These would be examples of ex post facto laws:
Today, I cross the street while facing north. Tomorrow, the state passes a law which says it's illegal to cross the street while facing north, and they try to apply it to what I did today.
Today, the penalty for speeding is a $50 fine. I'm pulled over, and given a ticket. Tomorrow, the fine is increased to $100, and they try to make me pay the $100 fine.
Grandfathering is not required by the ex post facto prohibition. In the example you gave, it would be perfectly legal for the state to require anybody practicing after [whenever] to have 500 hours of training, irrespective of whether they'd been practicing before that. They just can't prosecute you for practicing before [whenever] without those 500 hours of training.
I am a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer--don't rely on this advice.
If it had XFree86 3.3.3.1, it's worse than a bad repackage of M6.0--Mandrake 5.3 had 3.3.5, IIRC...
Re:are contracts/licenses copyrightable?
on
Hole in GNU GPL?
·
· Score: 1
Contracts/licenses are probably not "protectable" by copyright.
There's got to be case law on this, with all of the Board of Realtors copyrighted home sales contract stuff,
The Copyright law protects "original works of authorship" according to 17 USC 102(a). A quick search of federal case law on LEXIS didn't pull up any cases which directly deal with this issue, but from the text of the statute, I don't see why contracts and licenses would not be protected.
The closest cases I found dealt with copyrighting telephone directories. According to the US Supreme Court in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, 499 U.S. 340 (1991), a list of names and phone numbers cannot be copyrighted, as there is no "originality" in it. However, the specific wording of a contract would probably be held to be sufficiently "original."
It's important to realize, however, that only a specific expression of an idea can be copyrighted; the idea itself cannot. So, while the FSF could copyright the GPL, anybody else would be free to come up with a license based on the same ideas, and even containing most of the same restrictions. They just couldn't use the same language, or the same title.
Is it right to take money like this then fail to honor your part of the bargain?
If you're a resident of CA or OR, the bargain goes like this: You sign up for MSN for 3 years, MS gives you $400. You aren't obligated to keep (or pay for) MSN for any length of time, nor or you obligated to return the money.
Remember, these are the terms of the bargain (according to Best Buy's fine print). You're not signing an agreement and then later using some external loophole to weasel out of it; you are fulfilling all of your obligations under the contract. If Microsoft wants to propose a contract where they give you $400 and your only obligation is to sign up for their service, that's their problem.
But a contract cannot be enforced if it violates the Constitution or the laws of the United States of America, such as the 1st Amendment right to freedom of the press as was exercised by Slashdot's editorial staff when they posted links to the DeCSS program.
Contracts, unless they're with the government, generally don't have anything to do with the Constitution at all. Suppose that you worked for me, and as a condition of employment, you signed a non-disclosure agreement (which restricts your freedom of speech). Will a court enforce that? Of course they would, providing that it's not overly restrictive (and if they did strike it, it would be on the grounds of unconscionability, not the first amendment).
Of course, contracts are only (at best) tangentially related to this case.
I thought that disputes between parties in different states were supposed to be resolved in Federal Court. Lawyers in the crowd, please enlighten me on this.
Under some conditions, federal courts can resolve these cases, but state courts generally have jurisdiction as well. To get into federal court, none of the defendants can be in the same state as any of the plaintiffs, and the amount of the controversy must exceed $75,000. I don't know about the latter here, but if they're naming "Does 1-500" in the complaint, it's a fair bet that they don't meet the first requirement.
As to your first question, yes, such a person could be subject to the injunction, depending on other factors.
Perhaps a lawyer would care to explain how a restraining order issued in the United States affects a website hosted outside the USA and/or a website owned by people who live outside the USA???
It would depend on the laws of the country in which the site is hosted and/or the owners reside. If the court has jurisdiction in the first place (questionable in this case, I think, but hardly impossible), then the judgment will usually be enforcable in most other countries because of international treaties.
If you do something in California, a California court has jurisdiction over you, at least regarding what you did there, just about anywhere (even if you're a foreign national, and have left California before the suit is filed). If you've never been to California, it's a lot less certain.
Assuming, of course, that the Supreme Court takes the case. They are not obligated in any way to take any case, and they usually take only cases concerning Constitutional Rights of lack thereof.
Not quite right. Any person can seek Supreme Court review of any case, as long as (1) that person has exhausted all other appeals, and (2) there is some legitimate basis for federal jurisdiction. In that situation, the Court may decide whether to take the case or not. Typically, this is done by seeking a writ of certiorari (sp?), which the Court may grant or deny.
However, that's not the only way to get to the Supreme Court. Under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, Congress has pretty broad authority to specify the Court's jurisdiction. Thus, if Congress makes a law which says, for example, "Antitrust cases against major software manufacturers may be appealed by right to the Supreme Court," then the Court does not have discretion to reject that appeal.
Here, the Antitrust Expediting Act (15 U.S.C. sec. 29) allows a direct appeal to the Supreme Court, but they do have discretion to accept it or not. If MS appeals, the DoJ can request that it go to the supremes. If "the district judge who adjudicated the case enters an order stating that immediate consideration of the appeal by the Supreme Court is of general public importance in the administration of justice," then it goes to the Supreme Court, who will then decide whether to hear it. I'd rather expect they would hear this one, if Jackson entered the order, but I could be wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
To give an example: Under the Statute of Frauds, a contract for the sale of goods valued at over $500 must be in a signed writing to be enforceable (Uniform Commercial Code, sec. 2-201). Now, with the federal e-signature law, the writing can be signed electronically, and the contract will not be invalidated just because of the fact that it has an electronic signature.
This does not change any of the rules of proof in court. The electronic contract in the above example would still need to be authenticated in the same way as a paper contract.
This is incorrect. Corporations can't claim protection under the self-incrimination clause (see Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201 (1988)), but they can claim protection under the double jeopardy clause (see United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564 (1977)).
Somewhat more relevant to this case, a corporation is entitled to due process of law. See Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984). For the non-lawyers, all three of these are US Supreme Court cases.
So, yes, if there is a liberty interest in being able to shop for a judge, Rambus can't lose that right without due process. However, they got due process, so there's no problem.
Remember, a judge can take lots of money and/or throw you in jail for contempt of court, with a lot less process than seems to have been given to Rambus here. You don't need a full-blown trial to support every restriction on what might be considered your rights.
Corporations do not give anybody the privilege of not being accountable for their actions. If I work for a corporation, and (say) run over somebody with the corporation's car while on corporate business, I can be personally sued (as can the corporation). The people that are protected are the shareholders. When you buy stock in a corporation, you stand to lose (potentially) whatever you invested, but you don't risk being personally liable for the corporation's debts.
Probably the best passenger car diesels available in the US are the current-production VW TDI models. There isn't much unusual from the driver's perspective--wait a few seconds (if needed) for the glow plugs to turn off before starting, and be sure to use diesel fuel instead of gas when you fill up. They aren't particularly noisy, smelly, or smoky. They have plenty of power--they aren't race cars by any stretch of the imagination, but they accelerate pretty well, and they hold speed through the mountains with no trouble at all. They also get in the neighborhood of 50 mpg. With the way fuel prices were here (Dayton, OH) last week, my Jetta TDI would cost less in fuel than a Honda Insight, though the gas prices have since dropped a little.
Another alternative to petroleum-based diesel is biodiesel, which has already been mentioned here a bit. It can be made from vegetable oil, and will work in any diesel engine. Currently, commercially-available biodiesel is more expensive than petrodiesel in the USA, but it's a potential option.
I don't know about that. Paul D. Schreiber High School is part of the Port Washington Union Free School District, according to the 1999 profile. I can't tell for sure, but that kind of sounds like a public school to me...
I can think of a couple, not including inability of current technology to measure precisely enough:
Marking and measurement technology, of course, are additional issues.
That much is right, but your example is somewhat mistaken. The only thing which constitutes an ex post facto law is one which either (1) criminalizes an action which was done before the law was enacted, or (2) increases the penalty for such an action.
These would be examples of ex post facto laws:
Grandfathering is not required by the ex post facto prohibition. In the example you gave, it would be perfectly legal for the state to require anybody practicing after [whenever] to have 500 hours of training, irrespective of whether they'd been practicing before that. They just can't prosecute you for practicing before [whenever] without those 500 hours of training.
I am a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer--don't rely on this advice.
If it had XFree86 3.3.3.1, it's worse than a bad repackage of M6.0--Mandrake 5.3 had 3.3.5, IIRC...
There's got to be case law on this, with all of the Board of Realtors copyrighted home sales contract stuff,
The Copyright law protects "original works of authorship" according to 17 USC 102(a). A quick search of federal case law on LEXIS didn't pull up any cases which directly deal with this issue, but from the text of the statute, I don't see why contracts and licenses would not be protected.
The closest cases I found dealt with copyrighting telephone directories. According to the US Supreme Court in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, 499 U.S. 340 (1991), a list of names and phone numbers cannot be copyrighted, as there is no "originality" in it. However, the specific wording of a contract would probably be held to be sufficiently "original."
It's important to realize, however, that only a specific expression of an idea can be copyrighted; the idea itself cannot. So, while the FSF could copyright the GPL, anybody else would be free to come up with a license based on the same ideas, and even containing most of the same restrictions. They just couldn't use the same language, or the same title.
If you're a resident of CA or OR, the bargain goes like this: You sign up for MSN for 3 years, MS gives you $400. You aren't obligated to keep (or pay for) MSN for any length of time, nor or you obligated to return the money.
Remember, these are the terms of the bargain (according to Best Buy's fine print). You're not signing an agreement and then later using some external loophole to weasel out of it; you are fulfilling all of your obligations under the contract. If Microsoft wants to propose a contract where they give you $400 and your only obligation is to sign up for their service, that's their problem.
For more information in a somewhat more accessible format, you might want to check out this article on the ARRL's website.
Contracts, unless they're with the government, generally don't have anything to do with the Constitution at all. Suppose that you worked for me, and as a condition of employment, you signed a non-disclosure agreement (which restricts your freedom of speech). Will a court enforce that? Of course they would, providing that it's not overly restrictive (and if they did strike it, it would be on the grounds of unconscionability, not the first amendment).
Of course, contracts are only (at best) tangentially related to this case.
Under some conditions, federal courts can resolve these cases, but state courts generally have jurisdiction as well. To get into federal court, none of the defendants can be in the same state as any of the plaintiffs, and the amount of the controversy must exceed $75,000. I don't know about the latter here, but if they're naming "Does 1-500" in the complaint, it's a fair bet that they don't meet the first requirement.
As to your first question, yes, such a person could be subject to the injunction, depending on other factors.
It would depend on the laws of the country in which the site is hosted and/or the owners reside. If the court has jurisdiction in the first place (questionable in this case, I think, but hardly impossible), then the judgment will usually be enforcable in most other countries because of international treaties.
If you do something in California, a California court has jurisdiction over you, at least regarding what you did there, just about anywhere (even if you're a foreign national, and have left California before the suit is filed). If you've never been to California, it's a lot less certain.
According to Netcraft, hotmail is still running FreeBSD.
Not quite right. Any person can seek Supreme Court review of any case, as long as (1) that person has exhausted all other appeals, and (2) there is some legitimate basis for federal jurisdiction. In that situation, the Court may decide whether to take the case or not. Typically, this is done by seeking a writ of certiorari (sp?), which the Court may grant or deny.
However, that's not the only way to get to the Supreme Court. Under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, Congress has pretty broad authority to specify the Court's jurisdiction. Thus, if Congress makes a law which says, for example, "Antitrust cases against major software manufacturers may be appealed by right to the Supreme Court," then the Court does not have discretion to reject that appeal.
Here, the Antitrust Expediting Act (15 U.S.C. sec. 29) allows a direct appeal to the Supreme Court, but they do have discretion to accept it or not. If MS appeals, the DoJ can request that it go to the supremes. If "the district judge who adjudicated the case enters an order stating that immediate consideration of the appeal by the Supreme Court is of general public importance in the administration of justice," then it goes to the Supreme Court, who will then decide whether to hear it. I'd rather expect they would hear this one, if Jackson entered the order, but I could be wrong.