That the Courts say MS illegally used IE to monopolize the Browser market
No, you're quite wrong. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit expressly reversed the district court's conclusions that Microsoft (1) monopolized the browser market, and (2) illegally tied IE to Windows.
In fact, Microsoft was only found to be in violation of one out of four charges brought by the government and the states--viz., using anti-competitive tactics to maintain its desktop OS monopoly.
If he played by the rules and won, why was his company found guilty of operating as an illegal, predatory monopoly?
Although it may not make much difference to you, Microsoft was not found to be in criminal violation of the antitrust laws (which your use of the word "guilty" connotes). Microsoft was found civilly liable for violating section 1 of the Sherman Act by using anti-competitive means to maintain its monopoly on desktop PC operating systems.
Sec 103 of the DMCA amends Title 17 of the U.S. Code to prohibit circumvention of a technological measure that effective controls access to a work.
It then goes on to define the relevant terms thusly:
"(A) to 'circumvent a technological measure' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and
(B) a technological measure 'effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work."
No, do not give the NLRB a call. The NLRB is charged with administering the National Labor Relations Act, which defines unfair labor practices in the context of union-management relationships and protected concerted action (i.e., action involving two or more employees).
that's false. non-competes are generally enforceable as long as they are both geographically and temporally reasonable.
for example, a non-compete that said you couldn't practice your trade anywhere else at any time in the future would be unenforceable. one that said that you couldn't practice in Ithaca, New York for the next 18 months probably would be.
Because baseball is still, ultimately, a business. Webcasting games in a local area will devalue the OTA/cable broadcasting rights.
I don't think the webcasters will be able to carry the local network's commercials, so if viewers in the local area can bypass ads by subscribing to the webcast, then the networks will get less money for each advertising block. This, in turn, will reduce the amount of money that each team can get for its local broadcasting rights.
According to the article, they will check the Quova results against the zip code for the credit card you provide to them. If there's a discrepancy, they will call you.
And, if you're caught intentionally trying to circumvent the system, your credit card will automatically be charged $100.
Firearms, while legal, are regulated. Playstations are not, and are not illegal.
While Playstations may not be explicitly regulated at the present moment, it does not mean that they are free from regulation. Congress can, at any time, regulate video came consoles and "mod chips" that are distributed in (or substantially affect) interstate commerce. Such is the federal legislature's vast power under the Commerce Clause.
True, the lawyers do make a killing, but don't forget that the class representative must front all of the costs associated with notifying members of a Rule 23(b)(3) class of the suit and (proposed) settlement. Of course, few class representatives can afford to notify hundreds of thousands (or even millions) of people, so this cost is usually paid by the class representative's lawyer. Thus, a large part of the award that goes to the lawyer is compensatory in nature.
But anyway, if you don't like the terms of the settlement there's a simple option -- opt out and sue on your own.
Correct, the concept of "double jeopardy" applies to criminal prosecutions; but, in civil actions, the concept of res judicata applies. In addition, Rule 13(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a party in a civil suit to raise all claims arising out of the occurrence or transaction that is the subject matter of the suit in the original pleadings. Otherwise such compulsory counterclaims are forever waived and cannot be tried anew.
In this case, it can be argued that Sun's (latest) cause of action didn't arise until Windows XP shipped, in which case Rule 13(a) obviously does not apply.
Of course, IANAL (yet) so the standard disclaimers apply.
Slashdot Mirror
That the Courts say MS illegally used IE to monopolize the Browser market
No, you're quite wrong. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit expressly reversed the district court's conclusions that Microsoft (1) monopolized the browser market, and (2) illegally tied IE to Windows.
In fact, Microsoft was only found to be in violation of one out of four charges brought by the government and the states--viz., using anti-competitive tactics to maintain its desktop OS monopoly.
If he played by the rules and won, why was his company found guilty of operating as an illegal, predatory monopoly?
Although it may not make much difference to you, Microsoft was not found to be in criminal violation of the antitrust laws (which your use of the word "guilty" connotes). Microsoft was found civilly liable for violating section 1 of the Sherman Act by using anti-competitive means to maintain its monopoly on desktop PC operating systems.
No.
Sec 103 of the DMCA amends Title 17 of the U.S. Code to prohibit circumvention of a technological measure that effective controls access to a work.
It then goes on to define the relevant terms thusly:
"(A) to 'circumvent a technological measure' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and
(B) a technological measure 'effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work."
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know why just about all license documents have that chunk about legal liability etc. in all caps??
because a lot of jurisdictions require such notices to be conspicuous.
No, do not give the NLRB a call. The NLRB is charged with administering the National Labor Relations Act, which defines unfair labor practices in the context of union-management relationships and protected concerted action (i.e., action involving two or more employees).
...
So, unless you have a union
That they were basically bullshit, in fact.
that's false. non-competes are generally enforceable as long as they are both geographically and temporally reasonable.
for example, a non-compete that said you couldn't practice your trade anywhere else at any time in the future would be unenforceable. one that said that you couldn't practice in Ithaca, New York for the next 18 months probably would be.
open tomorrow in Milton Keynes, England
Is that next to John Maynard Friedman, England?
ba-dum-dum
While this may be in part due to its inclusion in Windows XP...
HA! Are you really that delusional?
Your post is so three hours ago ;)
Because baseball is still, ultimately, a business. Webcasting games in a local area will devalue the OTA/cable broadcasting rights.
I don't think the webcasters will be able to carry the local network's commercials, so if viewers in the local area can bypass ads by subscribing to the webcast, then the networks will get less money for each advertising block. This, in turn, will reduce the amount of money that each team can get for its local broadcasting rights.
According to the article, they will check the Quova results against the zip code for the credit card you provide to them. If there's a discrepancy, they will call you.
And, if you're caught intentionally trying to circumvent the system, your credit card will automatically be charged $100.
Not the pronoun, but rather a player with the unlikely name of "Who" is on first.
Walter, this isn't a guy who built the railroads, this is the guy who peed on my rug!
Because it's a reference to Ars Technica and its Imperator, Ken "Caesar" Fisher.
"The only way to win is not to play."
Firearms, while legal, are regulated. Playstations are not, and are not illegal.
While Playstations may not be explicitly regulated at the present moment, it does not mean that they are free from regulation. Congress can, at any time, regulate video came consoles and "mod chips" that are distributed in (or substantially affect) interstate commerce. Such is the federal legislature's vast power under the Commerce Clause.
True, the lawyers do make a killing, but don't forget that the class representative must front all of the costs associated with notifying members of a Rule 23(b)(3) class of the suit and (proposed) settlement. Of course, few class representatives can afford to notify hundreds of thousands (or even millions) of people, so this cost is usually paid by the class representative's lawyer. Thus, a large part of the award that goes to the lawyer is compensatory in nature.
But anyway, if you don't like the terms of the settlement there's a simple option -- opt out and sue on your own.
Dick Gephardt is the Minority Leader in the House. You're thinking of Tom Daschle, the Majority Leader in the Senate.
Correct, the concept of "double jeopardy" applies to criminal prosecutions; but, in civil actions, the concept of res judicata applies. In addition, Rule 13(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a party in a civil suit to raise all claims arising out of the occurrence or transaction that is the subject matter of the suit in the original pleadings. Otherwise such compulsory counterclaims are forever waived and cannot be tried anew.
In this case, it can be argued that Sun's (latest) cause of action didn't arise until Windows XP shipped, in which case Rule 13(a) obviously does not apply.
Of course, IANAL (yet) so the standard disclaimers apply.