Non-monopolies are prohibited from activities including price-fixing, bid-rigging, and allocation of territory or customers between competitors. There's no question that a monopoly will garner more attention from anti-trust regulators than a non-monopoly. But there are numerous decisions Apple could make about their SDK that might result in anti-trust violations.
The answer, "No, they aren't a monopoly or a utility" isn't sufficient to demonstrate that Apple is not violating anti-trust regulations. Some of the decisions they have made about the SDK could be violations, but only if they made them pursuant to an agreement (formal or informal) with a competitor. They very well could attract the attention of regulators investigating whether such an agreement exists.
That's what happens when you ratify the Constitution, you agree to the limitations set forth. I'm not sure what your point is here. Of course the ratification of the Constitution means agreement with the limitations set forth therein. That's not in question. What is in question is the extent of those limitations and how that extent is determined.
The person who wrote this article made a nonsensical criticism of Thomas' views on the first amendment's application to high schools. There are many reasons to disagree with Thomas' views on the subject; strict constructionism isn't one of them.
Btw, what part of No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
Implies that States don't have to abide by 1st amendment? What part of "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" implies that the first amendment freedoms are contained therein using a strict constructionist methodology? The first amendment simply restricts certain actions of Congress.
Once again, I am not advocating Thomas' position in this matter. I'm saying the specific criticism of Thomas' position set forth in the article oversimplifies a complex issue.
Clarence Thomas, who is often held out as an example of a "strict constructionist" judge, has said that Tinker vs. Des Moines, the Supreme Court case that extended First Amendment rights to high school students, is "without basis in the Constitution". But there's nothing in the First Amendment to say that it's limited to individuals over 18, although ironically most "strict constructionist" judges and their supporters, read it as if it is.)
There's also nothing in the First Amendment to say that it covers state action at all - the Amendment starts "Congress shall make no law..." The reason courts - including Justice Thomas - apply the First Amendment to the states is because of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause - an application that is not at all evident from the text of the Fourteenth Amendment.
So, to apply the freedom of speech clause to students in a public high school, one has to interpret the Constitution to apply the First Amendment to states (essentially expanding "Congress" to "state legislatures") and further interpret it to apply to the acts of unelected civil servants (teachers and principals).
I'm not saying that the decision to apply the free speech clause to public schools is wrong. I'm saying that the frequent contributor's analysis condemning Thomas' position as incompatible with his strict constructionist leanings is laughably superficial.
Law is complex. Can our laws be simplified? Yes. Should they be? Yes, in many case. But this isn't achieved by oversimplifying the underlying issues.
Which doesn't say that pi = 3 any more than saying "And he [Hiram] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one rim to the other it was round all about, and...a line of thirty-one and four-tenths cubits did compass it round about....And it was an hand breadth thick...." says that pi = 3.14.
Pi is, in fact, equal to neither of those numbers, nor to 3.14159 26535 89793 23846 26433 83279 50288 41971 69399 37510.
It is an irrational number for which any representation in digits is an approximation. And 3 is the proper approximation of pi to one significant digit.
"Does anyone have any ideas about how a lawyer would explain the difference between a legal argument and a business method?" Some of them would say there isn't a difference. Some lawyers have tried to patent tax advice.
"Binary Formats" is being used as a proper noun for a specific set of file formats. It is a defined term in the document:
Documenting the Microsoft Office "binary" file formats (i.e.,.doc,.xls, and.ppt) (the "Binary Formats") is not the intention or in the scope of DIS 29500.
Adding the header is making a derivative work of the original web page. So is substituting one add for another. I can't think of any reasonable fair use argument that would prevent this from being a copyright violation. The web sites visited by the ISP's subscribers likely have a cause of action against the ISP. And the ad substitution victims likely could prove significant damages.
I haven't fully thought through the contractual implications of this yet (as between the ISP and the ISP's subscribers), but there's almost certainly something there, too.
"Whether you have a non-compete agreement with an employer or not does not address the issue of trade secrets. Unless your former employer gives explicit permission to share trade secrets, you can never share them with any other employer."
Technically, this is true. However, without some explicit protection such as a confidentiality agreement, trade secrets don't exist, because taking reasonable means to protect the information is an element of trade secret formation.
Some agreement with the employees who have access to information is almost certainly necessary to gain trade secret protection for that information. This agreement does not have to be a non-compete agreement.
No, the Internet is not "just like" radio, the telephone, and the telegraph. It's different, which is why people use it rather than telegraphs.
Someone listening to a hate-filled screed calling for a race war on the radio can't be sure how many other people are listening. He doesn't form friendships grounded in the shared hatred, because he's not interacting with the rest of the audience.
Sure, the telephone can be used to provide that interaction, but generally it does not create connections between like-minded people. Rather, it allows people who have already connected to continue communicating.
The Internet combines the mass communication aspect of broadcast radio with the two-way communication aspect of the telephone. It has enormously aided recruiting for white supremacist groups from which the violent portions of the movement have recruited members.
Mind you, I don't think this is any sort of condemnation of the Internet, nor do I think it calls for censorship or wiretapping. I'm not sure I'll agree with whatever proposals come out of the bill's proposed committee. But it makes sense to acknowledge that the Internet is different in important ways from previous forms of communication and that those differences are useful to hate groups. It also makes sense for the government to investigate this issue.
The summary you submitted on the 2nd is more misleading than this one. In it, you stated "One of the main problems here seems that the wording is so vague that simply resisting arrest {an offense that, in the US, is generally considered to be using force} could be deemed prosecutable under the current draft."
Nothing is prosecutable under the current draft of the legislation, because it doesn't define any crimes.
If Bob's Concrete Construction paid the government $1 million to get the contract to build a new major freeway bypass, you guys would be calling it bribery. If Bob paid a government official $1 million to get the contract, I would call that bribery. But paying the government itself isn't bribery.
There are many examples of using another's trademark in an ad that do not amount to trademark infringement. The nominative use exception allows use of another's trademark to refer to the trademark owner's product or the trademark owner itself when:
[f]irst, the product or service in question must be one not readily identifiable without use of the trademark; second, only so much of the mark or marks may be used as is reasonably necessary to identify the product or service; and third, the user must do nothing that would, in conjunction with the mark, suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark holder.
Based on the contents of the ad reproduced in TFA, this ad could easily qualify for the nominative use exception. The determination couldn't be final without looking at the whole ad itself, but the snippets in the article seem to be right in line with these requirements.
Certainly, Google has the right to implement any trademark policy it wants. But their policy causes them to reject many ads that are not infringing on others' trademarks. The same policy would stop ads that described the wrongdoing of any organization that has trademark rights in its name (as most organizations that deal with the public do).
Slashdot Mirror
But it does contain "When legally authorized."
Non-monopolies are prohibited from activities including price-fixing, bid-rigging, and allocation of territory or customers between competitors. There's no question that a monopoly will garner more attention from anti-trust regulators than a non-monopoly. But there are numerous decisions Apple could make about their SDK that might result in anti-trust violations. The answer, "No, they aren't a monopoly or a utility" isn't sufficient to demonstrate that Apple is not violating anti-trust regulations. Some of the decisions they have made about the SDK could be violations, but only if they made them pursuant to an agreement (formal or informal) with a competitor. They very well could attract the attention of regulators investigating whether such an agreement exists.
Why do you think I didn't read that? He dropped it - that doesn't mean he didn't file a frivolous suit.
There's also nothing in the First Amendment to say that it covers state action at all - the Amendment starts "Congress shall make no law..." The reason courts - including Justice Thomas - apply the First Amendment to the states is because of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause - an application that is not at all evident from the text of the Fourteenth Amendment.
So, to apply the freedom of speech clause to students in a public high school, one has to interpret the Constitution to apply the First Amendment to states (essentially expanding "Congress" to "state legislatures") and further interpret it to apply to the acts of unelected civil servants (teachers and principals).
I'm not saying that the decision to apply the free speech clause to public schools is wrong. I'm saying that the frequent contributor's analysis condemning Thomas' position as incompatible with his strict constructionist leanings is laughably superficial.
Law is complex. Can our laws be simplified? Yes. Should they be? Yes, in many case. But this isn't achieved by oversimplifying the underlying issues.
Which doesn't say that pi = 3 any more than saying "And he [Hiram] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one rim to the other it was round all about, and...a line of thirty-one and four-tenths cubits did compass it round about....And it was an hand breadth thick...." says that pi = 3.14. Pi is, in fact, equal to neither of those numbers, nor to 3.14159 26535 89793 23846 26433 83279 50288 41971 69399 37510. It is an irrational number for which any representation in digits is an approximation. And 3 is the proper approximation of pi to one significant digit.
"Does anyone have any ideas about how a lawyer would explain the difference between a legal argument and a business method?" Some of them would say there isn't a difference. Some lawyers have tried to patent tax advice.
It means to free from bonds or restraints.
Adding the header is making a derivative work of the original web page. So is substituting one add for another. I can't think of any reasonable fair use argument that would prevent this from being a copyright violation. The web sites visited by the ISP's subscribers likely have a cause of action against the ISP. And the ad substitution victims likely could prove significant damages.
I haven't fully thought through the contractual implications of this yet (as between the ISP and the ISP's subscribers), but there's almost certainly something there, too.
"Whether you have a non-compete agreement with an employer or not does not address the issue of trade secrets. Unless your former employer gives explicit permission to share trade secrets, you can never share them with any other employer."
Technically, this is true. However, without some explicit protection such as a confidentiality agreement, trade secrets don't exist, because taking reasonable means to protect the information is an element of trade secret formation.
Some agreement with the employees who have access to information is almost certainly necessary to gain trade secret protection for that information. This agreement does not have to be a non-compete agreement.
No, the Internet is not "just like" radio, the telephone, and the telegraph. It's different, which is why people use it rather than telegraphs. Someone listening to a hate-filled screed calling for a race war on the radio can't be sure how many other people are listening. He doesn't form friendships grounded in the shared hatred, because he's not interacting with the rest of the audience. Sure, the telephone can be used to provide that interaction, but generally it does not create connections between like-minded people. Rather, it allows people who have already connected to continue communicating. The Internet combines the mass communication aspect of broadcast radio with the two-way communication aspect of the telephone. It has enormously aided recruiting for white supremacist groups from which the violent portions of the movement have recruited members. Mind you, I don't think this is any sort of condemnation of the Internet, nor do I think it calls for censorship or wiretapping. I'm not sure I'll agree with whatever proposals come out of the bill's proposed committee. But it makes sense to acknowledge that the Internet is different in important ways from previous forms of communication and that those differences are useful to hate groups. It also makes sense for the government to investigate this issue.
The summary you submitted on the 2nd is more misleading than this one. In it, you stated "One of the main problems here seems that the wording is so vague that simply resisting arrest {an offense that, in the US, is generally considered to be using force} could be deemed prosecutable under the current draft." Nothing is prosecutable under the current draft of the legislation, because it doesn't define any crimes.
Why do you assume you would still get your two weeks' pay after being escorted out?
Here's the unredacted opinion and here's the redacted opinion.