I even bought into it for a while. At some point in the mid to late 90's, I came to the conclusion (I forget how) that Apple could be liquidated for about $20/share. It was a risk, so I held out during its plummet to buy a couple of hundred shares at $13. But it stopped at 14:(
Also, the death of apple was "well established" due to its market share at a point where Apple's 5% or so made it the largest producer of computers a couple of quarters a year. Heck, I'd be happy for 1% of that market:)
Folks, the parent is not "insightful": It's just plain wrong. That might indeed be a problem with a legal system that acted that way, but we don't have to worry about that, because ours doesn't work that way.
You can file a complaint for "declaratory relief" to settle a *real* dispute between parties (but not hypothetical ones.
That your product is about to become illegal due to a regulation is a real real and justicable dispute, while the possiblity that an agency *might* issue such a rule given a Congressional law is not.
However, the party suing still must have standing. If the imminent law affects farmers, city-dwellers won't have standing to sue, but farmers would.
But aside from having the facts and law all wrong, you would have a point:)
A *settled* matter may go through court "canned," but the situation you describe fails to meet the Constitutional standard of "cases and controversies" for federal judicial jurisdiction.
Some states allow "advisory" opinions, but those opinions will not bind a person that isn't a party to the suit.
I am a lawayer, but this is not legal advice. If you get legal advice on slashdot, your flag bit is wrong.
I'm not surprised at all by the ruling that the FCC overstepped, we've been seeing quite a lot of rulings recently that agencies have overstepped their authority. Broadly speaking, administrative agencies cannot make choices *about* policy, but ponly about how to *implement* the policy given by Congress (or state legislatures). To significantly deviate from what can be done with other technologies is a policy choice, not an implementation choice, and would require a charge from Congress.
What i find odd is that the court ruled on these merits while still "concerned" about jurisdiction.
And that's when I looked closer.
The court didn't *say* anything today. Judges ask questions during oral arguments, some of which suggest a position. Often, the same judge will ask questions which make it sound like he holds conflicting positions. That's normal.
That said, the statement "You crossed the line," is a bit strong even for oral arguments, and does suggest that *that judge* is strongly leaning in thhat direction.
Still, though, the court has done *nothing* at this time.
I would be surprised, though, if the ruling doesn't come out before July 1. With two judges apparently leaning in a direction, the usual standards for a restraining order against enforcement of the law would seem to have been met.
As far as standing, I would expect (but certainly wouldn't bet my house on it!) that a single actual consumer as a petitioner would have standing to sue--the inability to buy devices currently on the market should be a sufficient real harm. An "assoiacion" is a much larger stretch. The courts are frequently hostile to such standing. That said, I can't tell from the slipshod reporting who the other petitioneers are. I'd be surprised if the lawyers for petitioners didn't bother to include at least one real person as a named plaintiff.
ESPN is one of the most expensive channels out there, if not the most expensive of the basic channels. It's a few bucks a month.
The FCC seems to have looked seriously at mandating a la carte service, but concluded that it would actually drive prices up. (You would pay more for each channel that you *do* want due to the price increasees).
Sounds like you've got a better cable comapny than we have around here.
I get the occasional brief outage on directv. It was bad for a while, and my wife called them (amazing in itself) madder than a wet hen when she missed much of the Reagan funeral. They sent a service call out and credited us for the cost. I felt really foolish when it turned out to be a tree from the neigbor's yard had grown in front of it:)
Aside from that glitch, I've found the outages to be *far* less common than I used to get from the cable company. And I probably wouldn't even have bothered trying except that I got angry over the cable company losing a payment *again* and getting hostile about it.
I did try dish network when I first got here. That lasted a couple of days:) We got local channels--when the wind blew hard enough to push a tree up the hill out of the way of the second satellite.
They still owe me $33 . . . over four years later.
I've never owned TiVo, only used it a few times. Does TiVo provide free updates to the UI/features that are useful on a regular basis?
Not only free, but they happen automatically.
From time to time, you end up with downloads of updated software. This tends to be piecemeal for regular tivos that get it by phone, and all at once on satellite. If it needs to, it reboots at some obscure time of the morning (I think it even worns you first).
As far as competing with cable, look at their deal with directv (which may or may not be ending, depending upon which rumors you believe). Someone is subsidizing hardware costs ($99), and it's only $5/month. And look at the portion (huge majority) of tivo subscribers with directivo . ..
The regular tivos are certainly expensive. THe directivo, however, can be had for $99 installed. Or, if you already have directv, you can still get it for $99. Sometimes $49. Even free sometimes if you already have directv, possibly with a tivo, and ask for it.
Then add the $5/month for tivo service through directv.
That phrasing should be for the macrumors litigation, not this one.
Uploading it to share it would certainly be an intentional copyright violation, no matter how many he expected to download it (1 or 1,000,000). It's not the general liability, however, that would be nondischargeable. It's the intent to cause the harm that matters.
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you get your legal advice on slashdot, your psychiatric problems are more serious than your legal ones.
That has *absolutely* nothing to to with the state.
The bankruptcy code definces certain types of debts that are not dischargeable in bankruptcy, including debts for
1) support payments 2) recent taxes 3) intentionally caused harm 4) fraud 5) student loans for several years and many others
Liability for disclosing the information in this case would be far-fetched. *HOWEVER*, if he "induced" the employee to break the NSA, that could be the tort of interference with contract, and could come under the intentionally caused harm category.
Slashdot Mirror
10 years? Keep going :) It predates the macintosh!
:(
:)
I even bought into it for a while. At some point in the mid to late 90's, I came to the conclusion (I forget how) that Apple could be liquidated for about $20/share. It was a risk, so I held out during its plummet to buy a couple of hundred shares at $13. But it stopped at 14
Also, the death of apple was "well established" due to its market share at a point where Apple's 5% or so made it the largest producer of computers a couple of quarters a year. Heck, I'd be happy for 1% of that market
hawk
hawk
Folks, the parent is not "insightful": It's just plain wrong. That might indeed be a problem with a legal system that acted that way, but we don't have to worry about that, because ours doesn't work that way.
:)
You can file a complaint for "declaratory relief" to settle a *real* dispute between parties (but not hypothetical ones.
That your product is about to become illegal due to a regulation is a real real and justicable dispute, while the possiblity that an agency *might* issue such a rule given a Congressional law is not.
However, the party suing still must have standing. If the imminent law affects farmers, city-dwellers won't have standing to sue, but farmers would.
But aside from having the facts and law all wrong, you would have a point
hawk, esq.
The word is bad, then.
A *settled* matter may go through court "canned," but the situation you describe fails to meet the Constitutional standard of "cases and controversies" for federal judicial jurisdiction.
Some states allow "advisory" opinions, but those opinions will not bind a person that isn't a party to the suit.
I am a lawayer, but this is not legal advice. If you get legal advice on slashdot, your flag bit is wrong.
I'm not surprised at all by the ruling that the FCC overstepped, we've been seeing quite a lot of rulings recently that agencies have overstepped their authority. Broadly speaking, administrative agencies cannot make choices *about* policy, but ponly about how to *implement* the policy given by Congress (or state legislatures). To significantly deviate from what can be done with other technologies is a policy choice, not an implementation choice, and would require a charge from Congress.
What i find odd is that the court ruled on these merits while still "concerned" about jurisdiction.
And that's when I looked closer.
The court didn't *say* anything today. Judges ask questions during oral arguments, some of which suggest a position. Often, the same judge will ask questions which make it sound like he holds conflicting positions. That's normal.
That said, the statement "You crossed the line," is a bit strong even for oral arguments, and does suggest that *that judge* is strongly leaning in thhat direction.
Still, though, the court has done *nothing* at this time.
I would be surprised, though, if the ruling doesn't come out before July 1. With two judges apparently leaning in a direction, the usual standards for a restraining order against enforcement of the law would seem to have been met.
As far as standing, I would expect (but certainly wouldn't bet my house on it!) that a single actual consumer as a petitioner would have standing to sue--the inability to buy devices currently on the market should be a sufficient real harm. An "assoiacion" is a much larger stretch. The courts are frequently hostile to such standing. That said, I can't tell from the slipshod reporting who the other petitioneers are. I'd be surprised if the lawyers for petitioners didn't bother to include at least one real person as a named plaintiff.
hawk, esq.
There is a $10/month difference between having a single regular regular receiver and a single regular plus a tivo, how's that? :)
I was disputing the claim that you don't pay ther regular $5 on a tivo, just the tivo fee, which isn't correct.
hawk
>and knew who to write to
.
To slashdot, obviously . .
hawk
That meant *how* many weeks avoiding british food?
hawk
Ahem. Posts such as this are required by law to be first in French, then in English.
hawk
Hey, things *do* change!
hawk
hawk
Indeed. Why, President Dean would be just another also-ran if it weren't for the effectiveness of such campaigns.
Oh, wait . .
hawk
Gee, you think? :)
hawk
Dimnat, I hite spimmers. Kall them ill! :)
hawk
ESPN is one of the most expensive channels out there, if not the most expensive of the basic channels. It's a few bucks a month.
The FCC seems to have looked seriously at mandating a la carte service, but concluded that it would actually drive prices up. (You would pay more for each channel that you *do* want due to the price increasees).
I'm skeptical, but at least they looked.
hawk
Look at the directivos . . . $5/month for tivo, and you get it for $99 . . .
hawk
Sounds like you've got a better cable comapny than we have around here.
:)
:) We got local channels--when the wind blew hard enough to push a tree up the hill out of the way of the second satellite.
I get the occasional brief outage on directv. It was bad for a while, and my wife called them (amazing in itself) madder than a wet hen when she missed much of the Reagan funeral. They sent a service call out and credited us for the cost. I felt really foolish when it turned out to be a tree from the neigbor's yard had grown in front of it
Aside from that glitch, I've found the outages to be *far* less common than I used to get from the cable company. And I probably wouldn't even have bothered trying except that I got angry over the cable company losing a payment *again* and getting hostile about it.
I did try dish network when I first got here. That lasted a couple of days
They still owe me $33 . . . over four years later.
hawk
I've never owned TiVo, only used it a few times. Does TiVo provide free updates to the UI/features that are useful on a regular basis?
.
Not only free, but they happen automatically.
From time to time, you end up with downloads of updated software. This tends to be piecemeal for regular tivos that get it by phone, and all at once on satellite. If it needs to, it reboots at some obscure time of the morning (I think it even worns you first).
As far as competing with cable, look at their deal with directv (which may or may not be ending, depending upon which rumors you believe). Someone is subsidizing hardware costs ($99), and it's only $5/month. And look at the portion (huge majority) of tivo subscribers with directivo . .
hawk
>As an Apple watcher for 20 years, I would say this: pack up your desk.
:)
Yeah. I remember Apple. Pity they went out of business
More seriously, if they spend as long going out of business as Apple has, he can pack *very* slowly.
hawk
The regular tivos are certainly expensive. THe directivo, however, can be had for $99 installed. Or, if you already have directv, you can still get it for $99. Sometimes $49. Even free sometimes if you already have directv, possibly with a tivo, and ask for it.
Then add the $5/month for tivo service through directv.
hawk
Directv charges $5/month for one or more tivos. You *also* pay $5 month for them as receivers (except for your first receiver).
Regular tivo gets something like $8/month extra for your second, third, etc. tivos.
The $5 extra is worth it for what a tivo does. I certainly wouldn't pay $13.
I'm looking at giving it all up for analog cable and mythtv after I move this summer.
hawk
5) The Woz feels sorry that the Kid is getting punished for his unthinking brush with Reality, donates $1000 to his defense.
Of course, this *could* just be Woz having flashbacks . . .
hawk
Willful infringement, $50k/each, at six copies. Quite a chunk :)
hawk
That phrasing should be for the macrumors litigation, not this one.
Uploading it to share it would certainly be an intentional copyright violation, no matter how many he expected to download it (1 or 1,000,000). It's not the general liability, however, that would be nondischargeable. It's the intent to cause the harm that matters.
hawk, esq.
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you get your legal advice on slashdot, your psychiatric problems are more serious than your legal ones.
That has *absolutely* nothing to to with the state.
The bankruptcy code definces certain types of debts that are not dischargeable in bankruptcy, including debts for
1) support payments
2) recent taxes
3) intentionally caused harm
4) fraud
5) student loans for several years
and many others
Liability for disclosing the information in this case would be far-fetched. *HOWEVER*, if he "induced" the employee to break the NSA, that could be the tort of interference with contract, and could come under the intentionally caused harm category.
hawk, esq.