I would be more inclined to that position if the current jury had not just returned a verdict form which awarded Apple damages whilst simultaneously finding that there was no patent infringement... (See the live blog from 4.50 EDT)
Which is a significant problem with having juries in thorny, complex civil trials. Emotion, procedural rules and the voire dire triumph over expertise and reason. It can work in your favour or against you, but it is impossible to verify that the thinking processes of the jury are rigorous.
At least judges sitting on their own have to explain the process by which they reached their decisions. Here the reasoning process appears to be a badly filled in sudoku...
Twitter would love to invite you aboard: you are just the sort of person we need. Feel free to share your thoughts, and your contemporaneous fecal status, with millions of people around the world!
Just keep it within 140 characters, ok? Otherwise, TL;DR
If the people in the picture are younger than the age at which they can legally consent to having that picture taken, then that picture is illegal.
You don't think your thesis proves too much? This would suggest that every picture of every child legally incapable of "consent" to the taking of that photograph is thereby illegal. I'm sure the Disney Channel is thereby loaded with illegal content...
The rule of unconscionability derives from equity (if we're being picky). And you're right: a court of equity will (in common law jurisdictions) refuse to enforce terms of a contract which are so extortionate as to outrage the court, particularly where the bargaining power of the parties is grossly uneven. But...
1) This is rarely a successful defence. The court must think something is seriously wrong and unjustifiable before it will intervene in an agreement between contracting parties with capacity.
2) Bearing this in mind, there isn't a chance in hell that the term in question is unconscionable. AT&T are charging what might be called the "market rate" (I can hear the economists howling with laughter).
In other words they have supplied an agreed service at an agreed rate which is not manifestly unfair. Rather than ordering a "bottle of red" and receiving the finest of wines, this case runs along these lines:
Customer: Pray sir, how much is the house red?
Waiter: $8 sir. Would sir like a bottle?
Customer: Hm. I'll take the vineyard.
As much as I hate to say it, as a starting point each party must look out for their own interests. Certain rules have assisted to remove unfair terms, particular for consumers (for instance, clauses excluding liability for breach of contract, or requiring indemnities), but the concept of agreeing a price for goods or services is so fundamental to a contract that it is only regulated under strictly defined circumstances. Extravagance is not one of them (at least for fully capable adults).
In the world of DMCA notices, questioning the "rights holder" whether his claim is valid or a sham is about as shocking as asking to screw his wife. On a long term basis. Without coffee breaks.
Two options:
1) Psystar backs down and stops producing Mac clones. Psystar goes out of business. Creditors lose out.
2) Psystar fights the good fight, gaining plenty of free publicity (Slashdot included) for taking on Goliath. If they lose, same scenario as 1. If they win, they (hopefully) have a larger customer base.
Insolvency law usually ensures that the people taking the fall from a company's demise are the unsecured creditors. It is considerably easier to gamble with the money of others.
I was taught a useful lesson at university. Never stop the inquiry with "You are liable in tort": It is inadequate to say "You are liable for trespass".
Yes, trespass is a wrong, and it ought not to be done. Once it has been done, we need to quantify the damage which must be compensated for, or possibly the resultant gain which the trespasser has obtained.
This Pennsylvania couple have opted for compensation of damage, a foolish move. From RTFA, they claim the depreciation of the value of their house. As if the US housing market's greatest danger was from rogue photographers. This is a non-starter. Mental stress? This would require several layers of tin-foil-hattery to be close to arguable.
Was there a better move? Amending the plea to strip Google of the profit it has made by trespassing on their property. Although the law of disgorgement is not fully worked out, academically or in practice, this would certainly make Google's minions think twice before driving down a road known not to be a public highway. And of course it would net the couple in question a considerable amount of cash for very little effort.
Slashdot Mirror
I would be more inclined to that position if the current jury had not just returned a verdict form which awarded Apple damages whilst simultaneously finding that there was no patent infringement... (See the live blog from 4.50 EDT)
Which is a significant problem with having juries in thorny, complex civil trials. Emotion, procedural rules and the voire dire triumph over expertise and reason. It can work in your favour or against you, but it is impossible to verify that the thinking processes of the jury are rigorous. At least judges sitting on their own have to explain the process by which they reached their decisions. Here the reasoning process appears to be a badly filled in sudoku...
And you managed to say it in Lolcats. Impressive!
Dear sir,
Twitter would love to invite you aboard: you are just the sort of person we need. Feel free to share your thoughts, and your contemporaneous fecal status, with millions of people around the world! Just keep it within 140 characters, ok? Otherwise, TL;DR
If the people in the picture are younger than the age at which they can legally consent to having that picture taken, then that picture is illegal.
You don't think your thesis proves too much? This would suggest that every picture of every child legally incapable of "consent" to the taking of that photograph is thereby illegal. I'm sure the Disney Channel is thereby loaded with illegal content...
I've never viewed procrastination as dangerous. I dare say that none of us here on /. would disagree.
Unless of course you're a member of the bomb squad. In which case, how/why read e-mails mid task?
The rule of unconscionability derives from equity (if we're being picky). And you're right: a court of equity will (in common law jurisdictions) refuse to enforce terms of a contract which are so extortionate as to outrage the court, particularly where the bargaining power of the parties is grossly uneven. But...
1) This is rarely a successful defence. The court must think something is seriously wrong and unjustifiable before it will intervene in an agreement between contracting parties with capacity.
2) Bearing this in mind, there isn't a chance in hell that the term in question is unconscionable. AT&T are charging what might be called the "market rate" (I can hear the economists howling with laughter).
In other words they have supplied an agreed service at an agreed rate which is not manifestly unfair. Rather than ordering a "bottle of red" and receiving the finest of wines, this case runs along these lines:
Customer: Pray sir, how much is the house red?
Waiter: $8 sir. Would sir like a bottle?
Customer: Hm. I'll take the vineyard.
As much as I hate to say it, as a starting point each party must look out for their own interests. Certain rules have assisted to remove unfair terms, particular for consumers (for instance, clauses excluding liability for breach of contract, or requiring indemnities), but the concept of agreeing a price for goods or services is so fundamental to a contract that it is only regulated under strictly defined circumstances. Extravagance is not one of them (at least for fully capable adults).
In the world of DMCA notices, questioning the "rights holder" whether his claim is valid or a sham is about as shocking as asking to screw his wife. On a long term basis. Without coffee breaks.
Two options: 1) Psystar backs down and stops producing Mac clones. Psystar goes out of business. Creditors lose out. 2) Psystar fights the good fight, gaining plenty of free publicity (Slashdot included) for taking on Goliath. If they lose, same scenario as 1. If they win, they (hopefully) have a larger customer base. Insolvency law usually ensures that the people taking the fall from a company's demise are the unsecured creditors. It is considerably easier to gamble with the money of others.
I was taught a useful lesson at university. Never stop the inquiry with "You are liable in tort": It is inadequate to say "You are liable for trespass".
Yes, trespass is a wrong, and it ought not to be done. Once it has been done, we need to quantify the damage which must be compensated for, or possibly the resultant gain which the trespasser has obtained.
This Pennsylvania couple have opted for compensation of damage, a foolish move. From RTFA, they claim the depreciation of the value of their house. As if the US housing market's greatest danger was from rogue photographers. This is a non-starter. Mental stress? This would require several layers of tin-foil-hattery to be close to arguable.
Was there a better move? Amending the plea to strip Google of the profit it has made by trespassing on their property. Although the law of disgorgement is not fully worked out, academically or in practice, this would certainly make Google's minions think twice before driving down a road known not to be a public highway. And of course it would net the couple in question a considerable amount of cash for very little effort.