"If you have nothing to hide" only applies in a perfect world where the government NEVER makes mistakes, NEVER arrests, prosecutes, or convicts people by mistake, and above all NEVER abuses civil liberties.
Additionally, it also assumes that government evidence rooms are PERFECTLY secure and that government networks are UNHACKABLE and no malicious third party could possibly break in and steal anything, either as a burglar or a hacker or both.
If even ONE of those assumptions isn't true, then the "if you have nothing to hide" defense is EPIC FAIL.
And even then, if I was innocent and had nothing to hide, I *still* wouldn't want the police wasting their time searching people. Police are on the government payroll, and time is money, TAXPAYER money, to be exact. So every minute police waste bothering people not worthy of suspicion is a minute of work funded by taxes taken out of the paychecks of hard working citizens, and it is therefore a waste of THEIR time.
I find it interesting that many people advocating "If you have nothing to hide" completely forget the aspect of taxpayer funded man-hours being consumed in the process.
So even a perfect patriot wouldn't like to be searched needlessly.
For all practical purposes, the government can do whatever the fuck it wants to precisely BECAUSE it is the government.
I'm well aware of the constitution btw, before anyone decides to mod me down. But I have to ask...is the government actually reading it these days or just using it for toilet paper while it shits on our liberties in the post 9/11 era?
That may actually suggest that Apple and Samsung both copied a third party.
Which implies prior art that should in fact have completely prevented the patents in question from being issued in the first place.
The whole thing about federal courts giving the USPTO higher deference on patent validity when the USPTO itself rubber stamps everything and lets the courts sort it out.
You do realize that laws are WRITTEN by lawyers, yes?
I would opine that it is no different from the guilds of old where the secrets of the trade were jealously protected.
In this case, they make it complicated so that nobody BUT a lawyer can understand it, and you have to pay the piper in legal fees just to survive in the same dog eat dog world that the lawyers themselves helped to craft in the first place.
Sadly in this day and age you'll both probably be arrested and your assets seized as proceeds of crime regardless of if you are convicted or not.
See US v $124,700, and general stuff about in rem jurisdictionb eing used to advance civil forfeiture where they arrest the money instead of you.
In this case they don't even have to prove you committed a crime, all they have to do is prove it was likely the money was dirty and they can seize it because it will cost you more in legal bills than it's worth to get it back.
See also the mega upload case, and how the feds seized the company's assets without due process simply by asserting in rem jurisdiction on grounds that the charges could be left hanging over the owners indefinitely. Let alone the fact that there's this thing called a statute of limitations.
So to be blunt, your analogy is naive and does not reflect the harsh reality of a police state in the making.
Fines are collected by the government and given major league priority, are harder to discharge in bankruptcy, can skim off government payments, and failure to pay can land you in jail.
Damages are collected by private entities, are usually dischargeable in bankruptcy, can only lien against your property, and you don't go to jail if you don't pay them.
Which is why possession of child porn needs to be legalized.
For the same reason that it's legal for the press to report on a crime.
Enjoying kiddie porn will, and should, make you a sicko, but making mere possession of it illegal will only make the actual molestation go underground.
Molestation wouldn't actually stop even if the videos of it did.
Not to mention that hacking kiddie porn onto someone else's computer and then siccing the cops on them is a wonderful way to sabotage their reputation, career, and life in general. Yes, this actually happened and the victim of the frame job was roasted alive in the court of public opinion for YEARS before the hack attempt was discovered and the REAL culprit faced the music. By then, unfortunately, the victim's reputation was irreparably damaged and the perpetrator stood a good chance of satiating his grudge and feeling accomplished, even after the consequences are factored in.
Slashdot Mirror
If shit hits the fan then dump the source code on the internet under an open source license of some sort.
"If you have nothing to hide" only applies in a perfect world where the government NEVER makes mistakes, NEVER arrests, prosecutes, or convicts people by mistake, and above all NEVER abuses civil liberties.
Additionally, it also assumes that government evidence rooms are PERFECTLY secure and that government networks are UNHACKABLE and no malicious third party could possibly break in and steal anything, either as a burglar or a hacker or both.
If even ONE of those assumptions isn't true, then the "if you have nothing to hide" defense is EPIC FAIL.
And even then, if I was innocent and had nothing to hide, I *still* wouldn't want the police wasting their time searching people. Police are on the government payroll, and time is money, TAXPAYER money, to be exact. So every minute police waste bothering people not worthy of suspicion is a minute of work funded by taxes taken out of the paychecks of hard working citizens, and it is therefore a waste of THEIR time.
I find it interesting that many people advocating "If you have nothing to hide" completely forget the aspect of taxpayer funded man-hours being consumed in the process.
So even a perfect patriot wouldn't like to be searched needlessly.
It's called sovereign immunity.
For all practical purposes, the government can do whatever the fuck it wants to precisely BECAUSE it is the government.
I'm well aware of the constitution btw, before anyone decides to mod me down. But I have to ask...is the government actually reading it these days or just using it for toilet paper while it shits on our liberties in the post 9/11 era?
It's called hoarding an artificially scarce resorce to extract a windfall.
Settling and taking a cross license only works if the two companies involved are able to coexist peacefully.
If one of them wants blood, they won't settle.
I don't think those statements are actually mutually exclusive.
Perhaps your premise that they are is faulty?
If apple is so good than it can win in the market instead of hitting below the belt by suing where it cannot compete.
You mean like Apple's lawyers?
That may actually suggest that Apple and Samsung both copied a third party.
Which implies prior art that should in fact have completely prevented the patents in question from being issued in the first place.
The whole thing about federal courts giving the USPTO higher deference on patent validity when the USPTO itself rubber stamps everything and lets the courts sort it out.
We already have that in police states.
Haves, have nots, and the fact that the haves want to be relatively rich, and not just absolutely.
They don't care about being rich, so much as being rich-ER than the competition.
She deserves to pay. The RIAA, however, does not deserve to collect.
Lying in court was an affront to the jurisdiction of the court, not to the RIAA.
They're using throwing him to the wolves as leverage to intimdate others into coughing up without a fight.
You do realize that laws are WRITTEN by lawyers, yes?
I would opine that it is no different from the guilds of old where the secrets of the trade were jealously protected.
In this case, they make it complicated so that nobody BUT a lawyer can understand it, and you have to pay the piper in legal fees just to survive in the same dog eat dog world that the lawyers themselves helped to craft in the first place.
This is slashdot, realm of anal retentive nerds.
If you cannot get it right the first time, you deserve the shame of being called on it.
If you cannot stand the shame, you do not belong here.
Also, one may observe that grammar faults are often ignored when the main message is still understood.
Freedom of the press does not require that a single individual is manning the printing machines.
What if you have three companies A, B, and C, each of which own half of the stock of the other two?
Sadly in this day and age you'll both probably be arrested and your assets seized as proceeds of crime regardless of if you are convicted or not.
See US v $124,700, and general stuff about in rem jurisdictionb eing used to advance civil forfeiture where they arrest the money instead of you.
In this case they don't even have to prove you committed a crime, all they have to do is prove it was likely the money was dirty and they can seize it because it will cost you more in legal bills than it's worth to get it back.
See also the mega upload case, and how the feds seized the company's assets without due process simply by asserting in rem jurisdiction on grounds that the charges could be left hanging over the owners indefinitely. Let alone the fact that there's this thing called a statute of limitations.
So to be blunt, your analogy is naive and does not reflect the harsh reality of a police state in the making.
Fines and damages are different.
Fines are collected by the government and given major league priority, are harder to discharge in bankruptcy, can skim off government payments, and failure to pay can land you in jail.
Damages are collected by private entities, are usually dischargeable in bankruptcy, can only lien against your property, and you don't go to jail if you don't pay them.
Unfortunately it's probably going to stand, since SCOTUS review is discretionary.
Which is why possession of child porn needs to be legalized.
For the same reason that it's legal for the press to report on a crime.
Enjoying kiddie porn will, and should, make you a sicko, but making mere possession of it illegal will only make the actual molestation go underground.
Molestation wouldn't actually stop even if the videos of it did.
Not to mention that hacking kiddie porn onto someone else's computer and then siccing the cops on them is a wonderful way to sabotage their reputation, career, and life in general. Yes, this actually happened and the victim of the frame job was roasted alive in the court of public opinion for YEARS before the hack attempt was discovered and the REAL culprit faced the music. By then, unfortunately, the victim's reputation was irreparably damaged and the perpetrator stood a good chance of satiating his grudge and feeling accomplished, even after the consequences are factored in.
See also: Joe job.
My guess is that they make it illegal in a vain attempt to stunt the market supposedly served by the actual molesters.
Reminds me of prohibition making the mafia rich from bootlegging.
Not to mention that crimes of lust and passion almost never have a profit motive.
Not to mention how easy it is to use kiddie porn hacks to sabotage someone else's reputation.
How many people would condemn the PRC for being IP thieves, while at the same time ranting and raving against the MAFIAA for hoarding its own IP?
Are pirates worse because they happen to be chinese?
You do realize that you share in that assessment yourself by posting here, right?