Statutory damages are awarded over a range, and according to how many works were infringed (not the number of copies of each work). The damages award is discretionary. Presumably, in the case of an individual file sharer, the judge would have the sense to craft a damages award that would be sufficient to deter that person, but not be astroomically stupid. One reason there's a range is it takes a lot less to deter me than it takes to deter a Microsoft or IBM. And despite what you think, most federal judges do have that much sense. Remember that they're appointed for life, so they're pretty much immune from lobbyists. It's actually illegal to bribe a judge (as opposed to a politician). You may disagree with their decisions, but most will do what they think is right most of the time.
Let's give blame where blame's due. FDR threatened to stack the court if they voted against him, and Congress lined up behind His Royal Highness King Franklin I and said they were good with that. This was all to pass the unconstitutional New Deal programs, which did little to actually fix the depression and transformed us into a socialist state. The alternative, of course, was to let people suffer the consequences of their own poor choices instead of looking to Washington to bail them out when their greed took them down. We have seen the epic failure of American socialism in the last 60 -- 70 years. Two-thirds of our federal budget is still going to pay for these cumbersome, ill-managed programs, but they are headed to bankruptcy, and are likely to take us down with them.
Unfortunately, the last week has demonstrated that we have learned absolutely nothing. Thanks to our Republican Chief, we are all paying to socializing losses to bail out the greedy, and we are all set to welcome, with open arms, the Democrats' Second Coming of the Socialist Messiah in January.
We will have nobody but ourselves to blame, comrades.
otherwise you'd have to keep a license for every object you own to prove you're the rightful owner. Possessing goods makes you the rightful owner, except if they're stolen.
No. That's a matter of proof of ownership. Being the rightful owner of goods makes you the rightful owner of goods. Possessing goods makes you the possessor of goods.
[SIGH] I hate replying to ACs, but I also would hate for somebody to believe that this is true.
The general rule is if you make any kind of copy of any kind of copyrighted work, you need permission from the copyright holder (there are some exceptions beyond the scope of a Slashdot comment, like fair use, but they don't apply here). Whether or not you agree with it, it is well-settled law that if you load software into memory, you have made a copy under copyright law. In response to this judicial holding, 17 U.S.C. 117 grants the "owner of a copy" of a computer program statutory permission to make copies into memory for using the program and to make archival copies. But merely possessing a copy does not make you a rightful "owner of a copy," just like possessing stolen goods does not make you the owner of those goods. You are the rightful owner of a copy when you have a properly-licensed copy. Bottom Line: You have only those rights in GPL software that the GPL grants you.
You don't automatically get any rights by possessing a copy of the software. If you have a piece of GPL software, the only thing that gives you the right to use or distribute that software is the GPL. Section 5 of the GPL even points out that the license is the only grant of rights you have. It speaks specifically of modifying and distributing, but the effect is the same if you just use it. You don't have the right to do that except by virtue of the license.
Shameless Plug---I wrote a short guide to the GPL that I sometimes send to clients. Check it out.
You know, when you have a little spat with the Mrs., it's usually a bad idea to start with the juvenile pranks. Sure, you think this one can't be topped, but that's because she hasn't told you about the MS Bob install disk she has stashed for emergencies.
That's generally true, but you also need to be careful of the relatively new dilution statute for "famous" marks. McDonald's camping gear will probably be okay (you may still get sued for dilution, but you have a better chance of winning since surname marks are inherently weak). But if you open Kodak shoe repair, or Exxon hot dogs, you will get sued, and you will probably lose.
And not if his name is the same as theirs. I can open a store called "Paul Robinson's Department Store" and the currently existing Robinson's Department Store (actually J.W. Robinson or Robinson-May depending on what part of the U.S. they're in) chain has no grounds to stop me (especially if I included the note "Not affiliated with the J.W. Robinson Co." on the entrance door of my store); one may always use one's birth name (or married name in the case of a woman, since men don't change their names when they get married) to do business even if it is identical to an existing company in the same line of business
This is not true. If you use a name that is confusingly similar to another's trademark, the fact that it is your own name does not make it okay. The whole point of trademark is to enable consumer's to identify the source of goods and services based on a known mark. If everybody with the last name of McDonald was able to open a burger joint called "McDonald's," that purpose would be frustrated. Consumers would be confused because they wouldn't know if this McDonald's was going to sell them a low-quality slapped-together microwaved piece of McCrap, or if this one happened to be some mom-and-pop knockoff instead.
As for the domain name, if it's not that important, sell it. If they make a legitimate offer (like "We will buy your domain for $X") and you accept it, you have a contract. They can't then go to a court and say, "Look, he's trying to fleece us." (But that's not legal advice. Hire a lawyer)
Never been there myself, but I understand this is the part of the strip where you don't have to take your dad in drag. Normal clothes should do just fine.
Heck if she's a Lord of the Rings geek there's a even a band [ringdesigner.com] she may like!
I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that giving your true love the One Ring as a token of your undying love may be taking your devotion to a fantasy story (even a great one) a little far. Remember, this is something she's supposed to wear for her whole life.
A Play in One Act.
[Enter CIRCLETIMESSQUARE, a poster to Slashdot]
CTS: Behold, copyright is dead! w00t! w4r3z 4-evar!
[Enter ZORDAK, who tireth of hearing this nonsensical and self-serving platitude]
ZORDAK: Methinks these Slashdotters think otherwise of him who hath blasphemed the holy GPL.
CTS [condescendingly and patronizingly]: Ha ha, thou fool! Thou fellest victim to one of the classic blunders! Copyright is verily dead, but the GPL is copyleft! Copyright is not enforceable because copyright is not enforceable. Copyleft is enforceable bevause copyleft is enforceable.
ZORDAK: Thou art mad and reasonest in circles. The GPL printed is but toilet paper without the power of copyright to enforce it. Copyleft is but a cute name for a species of copyright license. It is as any other license. It granteth unto the licensee certain privileges and imposeth on him certain obligations. And verily it retaineth to the licensor certain rights. There is no distinction between copyright and copyleft. The one is but a subset, wholly consumed in the other. If copyright dieth, copyleft dieth with it.
CTS: Thou art condescending and patronizing as well as foolish! To prove your foolishness, I cite the Oracle of Wikipedia. Behold! Copyleft is a species of copyright license. It granteth to the licensee certain rights while retaining others unto the licensor! And behold, it imposeth certain obligations on the licensor. Seest thou now thy foolishness? Seest thou wherein thou dost err? Thou saidst nothing to disprove my premise.
ZORDAK: I yield to your mastery, for thou hast shown me the error of my ways. I go straightaway to turn in my bar card.
Your entire post is astoundingly circular and misinformed.
copyleft is not copyright.
Wrong. Copyleft is a cute term somebody made up to describe a certain type of copyright license. It's still entirely dependent upon copyright law. Like any non-exclusive copyright license, the GPL conveys less than the entire interest in the copyright, meaning that the owner of the copyright can impose restrictions on use of the copyrighted work. It has nothing to do with any inherent right of attribution. In fact, there expressly is NOT an inherent right to attribution in the United States (or any other "moral rights"), which is why Jacobsen (the case last week about the Artistic License) had to deal with the attribution clause.
copyleft says you can distribute anyway you want, but you should properly attribute. this is still enforceable
This statement is not only merely conclusory, it is wrong. Some licenses say that, but they are not considered "copyleft" by the FSF. Copyleft licenses require that derivative works be perpetually re-licensed under the original free software license. If they can place that stipulation on derivative works, it is because Title 17 of the United States Code says they can. If there is no copyright, the only potential cause of action you have is maybe a breach of contract claim, but as the defendant in Jacobsen pointed out, your damages in the case of software you're handing out for free to all takers are essentially zero. That's called efficient breach, and it's perfectly allowable under contract. It's only with copyright that you can get stuff like statutory damages or the defendant's ill-gotten profits.
The rest of your response seems to be simply an observation that it's easier to sue Microsoft (a single entity) than it is to sue millions of people who are just as blatantly violating the copyrights of the media cartels (I'm not talking about Stephanie Luz here; I'm talking about those of you who feel entitled to download songs simply because you want them).
While this may indeed present a practial issue, it has nothing to do with this alleged fundamental difference between copyright and "copyleft."
So pick your poison. Either copyright is a good idea, and the GPL is enforceable, or copyright is a bad idea, and Microsoft can steal your code and do whatever they want with it (similarly, George Lucas could take your Fillipino horror movie and release it in theaters under the auspices of Lucasfilm, re-branded as a Star Wars prequel, and you could do nothing more than rant about it on Slashdot). To say that copyrights are enforceable against Microsoft or George Lucas but not against you is simply hypocritical and intellectually dishonest. Sure, the cartels are evil. But that doesn't change the fact that if you want to control what you create, you need strong copyrights just as much as they do. Get it now?
there is no more life in copyright for products that can be consumed electronically (music, text, movies, etc.) because there is no way to enforce the legal concept of copyright in an environment where there is zero distribution cost for infinite distribution abilities
I wonder how many Slashdotters would be singing this tune if Microsoft downloaded a copy of the Linux kernel and appropriated it for use in Windos 7 like Apple (legally) did with OSX. Without strong copyright laws (and without strong freedom of contract jurisprudence to enforce some of the more far-reaching provisions), the GPL is not viable. The only other way to keep it "open" would be to maintain it as a trade secret, which kind of defeats the whole philosophy.
Agreed. I read the opinion, and it's not that big a deal. It just says that when a big corporation wants to send nasty take-down notices, they have to pause for a about half a second and think, "Is this absolutely, positively fair use?" After they've done that, and determined that it may be, but it's not a slam dunk fair use, they can send their takedown notice.
The standard of proof on the misrepresentation claim is subjective bad faith. That means that even with this decision, Lenz will have to prove that Universal knew that this was a fair use and deliberately ignored that fact (apparently to appease Prince) (and seriously, honest question, does Prince even sell records anymore? Seems like I haven't heard much about him lately except litigation. Why is Universal bending over backward to appease him).
I really can't think of very many situations where fair use is such a slam dunk that issuing a takedown notice in the light of otherwise clear infringement is going to be misrepresentation. Maybe if it is clearly in pursuit of some motive other than controlling distribution of the work (like trying to silence criticism or something). But it seems pretty clear in this case that it's just a matter of Prince getting his feelings hurt because somebody did something with his song that he didn't expressly approve. It's not like Lenz was saying, "Look how bad this Prince song is," or "Here's a YouTube video of me analyzing the theme of this Prince song."
Scalia wing? Idiot. You should be ashamed of yourself. Stevens wrote the majority opinion in Raich. Thomas dissented. Please learn that liberals prefer commerce clause expansion and conservatives want to shrink it. TYVMIA.:-)
Oops, typo. I meant rein in, of course. You're absolutely right that Stevens lets the feds use the commerce clause to reign.
First of all, non-competes need not be necessarily limited geographically to be upheld. They can limited in other ways; state laws vary on what's enforceable and what's not. In many states other than California, a clause along the lines of "Employee shall not compete for companies A, B, and C anywhere within the United States for three years following termination of employment" can be upheld, unless it can be shown that those three companies dominate the employee's market to the point where the employee would have considerable difficulty finding any position in his field.
Non-competes are not my area of law, but I'm pretty sure that at least in Texas, limited geography is a requirement. And I think many other states are similar. But I could be wrong on that.
Second, virtually everything these days is considered interstate commerce. The federal government has managed to void California's marijuana legalization efforts by applying the "interstate commerce" clause, even when the marijuana grown within the state by Californians and sold within the state to other Californians.
Sadly, this is true. But the Scalia wing has won some victories in reigning in the commerce clause. Of course, we don't know whether a specific law is an interstate commerce law until the Court tells us one way or another.
The only way to get a reading one way or another at the federal level would be if a person signed a non-compete outside of California, then moved to California for work, and then got sued by his former employer. Such a suit, assuming it's upheld through the other state's court system, would then be virtually guaranteed a trial in some federal court. Until then, you may want to consider avoiding such contracts and/or run them by a lawyer in your jurisdiction to assess what risks you might face after you're done with the
I think the situation would pretty clearly be governed by the law of the first state, where the contract was signed and where the employment took place. Why would this be "virtually guaranteed a trial in some federal court"? If the employer gets a valid judgment in the other state (even if it's in a federal court sitting in the other state, which might happen if you have diversity, but it would still apply that state's law), California is required to give full faith and credit to that judgment. The exception would be if the first court didn't have personal jurisdiction over the defendant, but with a contract signed and performed in the other state, I don't see how you could avoid it (personal jurisdiction is a federal constitutional issue, but a pretty clear-cut one in this case). If you are really concerned about this, sue the guy in California and serve him there. Then you just have a California court applying the other state's law. Or put a forum selection clause in the original agreement. Either way, the non-compete is upheld if it was valid in the other state.
You don't understand the changes in American conservativism in the twenty years, then. At least three of the conservative justices will side with the corporations, regardless of principles.
Which three? Name them, please. Thomas and Scalia are well established as Sates' Rights crusaders. Roberts and Alito are fairly new to the Court, so they don't have as much history to go on, but Alito is pretty similar to Scalia in his constitutional ideology. Roberts seems to be more of a practical conservative (though I'd like to see your evidence that he is an unprincipled corporate shill), but even the Chief still only counts for one vote. And Kennedy hardly counts as a conservative.
Remember, in Kelo v. New London, it was the LIBERAL wing of the court (along with Kennedy) that said New London could forcibly take homes from private citizens and give the land to Big Pharma. Scalia and Thomas were the ones who nearly blew a gasket over it.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, FDR's socialist programs are sucking us dry. Two-thirds of our federal budget is spent artificially propping up failed entitlement programs.
Statutory damages are awarded over a range, and according to how many works were infringed (not the number of copies of each work). The damages award is discretionary. Presumably, in the case of an individual file sharer, the judge would have the sense to craft a damages award that would be sufficient to deter that person, but not be astroomically stupid. One reason there's a range is it takes a lot less to deter me than it takes to deter a Microsoft or IBM. And despite what you think, most federal judges do have that much sense. Remember that they're appointed for life, so they're pretty much immune from lobbyists. It's actually illegal to bribe a judge (as opposed to a politician). You may disagree with their decisions, but most will do what they think is right most of the time.
Let's give blame where blame's due. FDR threatened to stack the court if they voted against him, and Congress lined up behind His Royal Highness King Franklin I and said they were good with that. This was all to pass the unconstitutional New Deal programs, which did little to actually fix the depression and transformed us into a socialist state. The alternative, of course, was to let people suffer the consequences of their own poor choices instead of looking to Washington to bail them out when their greed took them down. We have seen the epic failure of American socialism in the last 60 -- 70 years. Two-thirds of our federal budget is still going to pay for these cumbersome, ill-managed programs, but they are headed to bankruptcy, and are likely to take us down with them.
Unfortunately, the last week has demonstrated that we have learned absolutely nothing. Thanks to our Republican Chief, we are all paying to socializing losses to bail out the greedy, and we are all set to welcome, with open arms, the Democrats' Second Coming of the Socialist Messiah in January.
We will have nobody but ourselves to blame, comrades.
IIRC, the technique was refined over time, and finally perfected with the "doomsday" hologram codenamed "BRTN-E SPRS"
No. That's a matter of proof of ownership. Being the rightful owner of goods makes you the rightful owner of goods. Possessing goods makes you the possessor of goods.
[SIGH] I hate replying to ACs, but I also would hate for somebody to believe that this is true.
The general rule is if you make any kind of copy of any kind of copyrighted work, you need permission from the copyright holder (there are some exceptions beyond the scope of a Slashdot comment, like fair use, but they don't apply here). Whether or not you agree with it, it is well-settled law that if you load software into memory, you have made a copy under copyright law. In response to this judicial holding, 17 U.S.C. 117 grants the "owner of a copy" of a computer program statutory permission to make copies into memory for using the program and to make archival copies. But merely possessing a copy does not make you a rightful "owner of a copy," just like possessing stolen goods does not make you the owner of those goods. You are the rightful owner of a copy when you have a properly-licensed copy. Bottom Line: You have only those rights in GPL software that the GPL grants you.
You don't automatically get any rights by possessing a copy of the software. If you have a piece of GPL software, the only thing that gives you the right to use or distribute that software is the GPL. Section 5 of the GPL even points out that the license is the only grant of rights you have. It speaks specifically of modifying and distributing, but the effect is the same if you just use it. You don't have the right to do that except by virtue of the license.
Shameless Plug---I wrote a short guide to the GPL that I sometimes send to clients. Check it out.
You know, when you have a little spat with the Mrs., it's usually a bad idea to start with the juvenile pranks. Sure, you think this one can't be topped, but that's because she hasn't told you about the MS Bob install disk she has stashed for emergencies.
Because the guy with the thermonuclear weapons is always right.
He is.
That's generally true, but you also need to be careful of the relatively new dilution statute for "famous" marks. McDonald's camping gear will probably be okay (you may still get sued for dilution, but you have a better chance of winning since surname marks are inherently weak). But if you open Kodak shoe repair, or Exxon hot dogs, you will get sued, and you will probably lose.
And not if his name is the same as theirs. I can open a store called "Paul Robinson's Department Store" and the currently existing Robinson's Department Store (actually J.W. Robinson or Robinson-May depending on what part of the U.S. they're in) chain has no grounds to stop me (especially if I included the note "Not affiliated with the J.W. Robinson Co." on the entrance door of my store); one may always use one's birth name (or married name in the case of a woman, since men don't change their names when they get married) to do business even if it is identical to an existing company in the same line of business
This is not true. If you use a name that is confusingly similar to another's trademark, the fact that it is your own name does not make it okay. The whole point of trademark is to enable consumer's to identify the source of goods and services based on a known mark. If everybody with the last name of McDonald was able to open a burger joint called "McDonald's," that purpose would be frustrated. Consumers would be confused because they wouldn't know if this McDonald's was going to sell them a low-quality slapped-together microwaved piece of McCrap, or if this one happened to be some mom-and-pop knockoff instead.
As for the domain name, if it's not that important, sell it. If they make a legitimate offer (like "We will buy your domain for $X") and you accept it, you have a contract. They can't then go to a court and say, "Look, he's trying to fleece us." (But that's not legal advice. Hire a lawyer)
Never been there myself, but I understand this is the part of the strip where you don't have to take your dad in drag. Normal clothes should do just fine.
I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that giving your true love the One Ring as a token of your undying love may be taking your devotion to a fantasy story (even a great one) a little far. Remember, this is something she's supposed to wear for her whole life.
Didn't you have the first year EE seminar where they made you swear a solemn oath to only use your powers for good?
A Play in One Act. [Enter CIRCLETIMESSQUARE, a poster to Slashdot] CTS: Behold, copyright is dead! w00t! w4r3z 4-evar! [Enter ZORDAK, who tireth of hearing this nonsensical and self-serving platitude] ZORDAK: Methinks these Slashdotters think otherwise of him who hath blasphemed the holy GPL. CTS [condescendingly and patronizingly]: Ha ha, thou fool! Thou fellest victim to one of the classic blunders! Copyright is verily dead, but the GPL is copyleft! Copyright is not enforceable because copyright is not enforceable. Copyleft is enforceable bevause copyleft is enforceable. ZORDAK: Thou art mad and reasonest in circles. The GPL printed is but toilet paper without the power of copyright to enforce it. Copyleft is but a cute name for a species of copyright license. It is as any other license. It granteth unto the licensee certain privileges and imposeth on him certain obligations. And verily it retaineth to the licensor certain rights. There is no distinction between copyright and copyleft. The one is but a subset, wholly consumed in the other. If copyright dieth, copyleft dieth with it. CTS: Thou art condescending and patronizing as well as foolish! To prove your foolishness, I cite the Oracle of Wikipedia. Behold! Copyleft is a species of copyright license. It granteth to the licensee certain rights while retaining others unto the licensor! And behold, it imposeth certain obligations on the licensor. Seest thou now thy foolishness? Seest thou wherein thou dost err? Thou saidst nothing to disprove my premise. ZORDAK: I yield to your mastery, for thou hast shown me the error of my ways. I go straightaway to turn in my bar card.
Wrong. Copyleft is a cute term somebody made up to describe a certain type of copyright license. It's still entirely dependent upon copyright law. Like any non-exclusive copyright license, the GPL conveys less than the entire interest in the copyright, meaning that the owner of the copyright can impose restrictions on use of the copyrighted work. It has nothing to do with any inherent right of attribution. In fact, there expressly is NOT an inherent right to attribution in the United States (or any other "moral rights"), which is why Jacobsen (the case last week about the Artistic License) had to deal with the attribution clause.
This statement is not only merely conclusory, it is wrong. Some licenses say that, but they are not considered "copyleft" by the FSF. Copyleft licenses require that derivative works be perpetually re-licensed under the original free software license. If they can place that stipulation on derivative works, it is because Title 17 of the United States Code says they can. If there is no copyright, the only potential cause of action you have is maybe a breach of contract claim, but as the defendant in Jacobsen pointed out, your damages in the case of software you're handing out for free to all takers are essentially zero. That's called efficient breach, and it's perfectly allowable under contract. It's only with copyright that you can get stuff like statutory damages or the defendant's ill-gotten profits.
The rest of your response seems to be simply an observation that it's easier to sue Microsoft (a single entity) than it is to sue millions of people who are just as blatantly violating the copyrights of the media cartels (I'm not talking about Stephanie Luz here; I'm talking about those of you who feel entitled to download songs simply because you want them).
While this may indeed present a practial issue, it has nothing to do with this alleged fundamental difference between copyright and "copyleft."
So pick your poison. Either copyright is a good idea, and the GPL is enforceable, or copyright is a bad idea, and Microsoft can steal your code and do whatever they want with it (similarly, George Lucas could take your Fillipino horror movie and release it in theaters under the auspices of Lucasfilm, re-branded as a Star Wars prequel, and you could do nothing more than rant about it on Slashdot). To say that copyrights are enforceable against Microsoft or George Lucas but not against you is simply hypocritical and intellectually dishonest. Sure, the cartels are evil. But that doesn't change the fact that if you want to control what you create, you need strong copyrights just as much as they do. Get it now?
I wonder how many Slashdotters would be singing this tune if Microsoft downloaded a copy of the Linux kernel and appropriated it for use in Windos 7 like Apple (legally) did with OSX. Without strong copyright laws (and without strong freedom of contract jurisprudence to enforce some of the more far-reaching provisions), the GPL is not viable. The only other way to keep it "open" would be to maintain it as a trade secret, which kind of defeats the whole philosophy.
Agreed. I read the opinion, and it's not that big a deal. It just says that when a big corporation wants to send nasty take-down notices, they have to pause for a about half a second and think, "Is this absolutely, positively fair use?" After they've done that, and determined that it may be, but it's not a slam dunk fair use, they can send their takedown notice.
The standard of proof on the misrepresentation claim is subjective bad faith. That means that even with this decision, Lenz will have to prove that Universal knew that this was a fair use and deliberately ignored that fact (apparently to appease Prince) (and seriously, honest question, does Prince even sell records anymore? Seems like I haven't heard much about him lately except litigation. Why is Universal bending over backward to appease him).
I really can't think of very many situations where fair use is such a slam dunk that issuing a takedown notice in the light of otherwise clear infringement is going to be misrepresentation. Maybe if it is clearly in pursuit of some motive other than controlling distribution of the work (like trying to silence criticism or something). But it seems pretty clear in this case that it's just a matter of Prince getting his feelings hurt because somebody did something with his song that he didn't expressly approve. It's not like Lenz was saying, "Look how bad this Prince song is," or "Here's a YouTube video of me analyzing the theme of this Prince song."
What, do they come with LaTeX files or something?
Scalia wing? Idiot. You should be ashamed of yourself. Stevens wrote the majority opinion in Raich. Thomas dissented. Please learn that liberals prefer commerce clause expansion and conservatives want to shrink it. TYVMIA. :-)
Oops, typo. I meant rein in, of course. You're absolutely right that Stevens lets the feds use the commerce clause to reign.
First of all, non-competes need not be necessarily limited geographically to be upheld. They can limited in other ways; state laws vary on what's enforceable and what's not. In many states other than California, a clause along the lines of "Employee shall not compete for companies A, B, and C anywhere within the United States for three years following termination of employment" can be upheld, unless it can be shown that those three companies dominate the employee's market to the point where the employee would have considerable difficulty finding any position in his field.
Non-competes are not my area of law, but I'm pretty sure that at least in Texas, limited geography is a requirement. And I think many other states are similar. But I could be wrong on that.
Second, virtually everything these days is considered interstate commerce. The federal government has managed to void California's marijuana legalization efforts by applying the "interstate commerce" clause, even when the marijuana grown within the state by Californians and sold within the state to other Californians.
Sadly, this is true. But the Scalia wing has won some victories in reigning in the commerce clause. Of course, we don't know whether a specific law is an interstate commerce law until the Court tells us one way or another.
The only way to get a reading one way or another at the federal level would be if a person signed a non-compete outside of California, then moved to California for work, and then got sued by his former employer. Such a suit, assuming it's upheld through the other state's court system, would then be virtually guaranteed a trial in some federal court. Until then, you may want to consider avoiding such contracts and/or run them by a lawyer in your jurisdiction to assess what risks you might face after you're done with the
I think the situation would pretty clearly be governed by the law of the first state, where the contract was signed and where the employment took place. Why would this be "virtually guaranteed a trial in some federal court"? If the employer gets a valid judgment in the other state (even if it's in a federal court sitting in the other state, which might happen if you have diversity, but it would still apply that state's law), California is required to give full faith and credit to that judgment. The exception would be if the first court didn't have personal jurisdiction over the defendant, but with a contract signed and performed in the other state, I don't see how you could avoid it (personal jurisdiction is a federal constitutional issue, but a pretty clear-cut one in this case). If you are really concerned about this, sue the guy in California and serve him there. Then you just have a California court applying the other state's law. Or put a forum selection clause in the original agreement. Either way, the non-compete is upheld if it was valid in the other state.
You don't understand the changes in American conservativism in the twenty years, then. At least three of the conservative justices will side with the corporations, regardless of principles.
Which three? Name them, please. Thomas and Scalia are well established as Sates' Rights crusaders. Roberts and Alito are fairly new to the Court, so they don't have as much history to go on, but Alito is pretty similar to Scalia in his constitutional ideology. Roberts seems to be more of a practical conservative (though I'd like to see your evidence that he is an unprincipled corporate shill), but even the Chief still only counts for one vote. And Kennedy hardly counts as a conservative.
Remember, in Kelo v. New London, it was the LIBERAL wing of the court (along with Kennedy) that said New London could forcibly take homes from private citizens and give the land to Big Pharma. Scalia and Thomas were the ones who nearly blew a gasket over it.
Somebody please mod this guy up. The editors and posters appear to be equally clueless on this story.