I suspect that the point of bringing it is to get a ruling. Not all lawsuits are to make money.
I suspect that the RIAA was set-up on this. Since Felton not only is a boy-scout, but looks like one too, and Princeton can't be called a pirates cove, they can't use the pirate/hacker label to villify Felton. The MPAA had done this with the 2600 case.
Only questions of fact get to a jury (and mixed law and fact). This case will soley be a question of law. Juries do not get to decide if a law if legal.
Yeah, the fashion designers would be suing everyone.
I see a nice suit design I like, program the material to stretch and shrink in the right places, and presto -- my outfit looks just like what I saw. Armani sees this and sends a pack of lawyers after me. I press a few keystrokes, it is now a shark fighting suit.
This ruling has nothing to do with movies! This is saying, if you live in Florida, and you give someone an illegal copies of Windows, that since most computer companies are in California, then California has Jurisdiction.
This is justification of forum shopping, at it's worse!
Why do you have to have the proof in the article? Though it lends credibility to the article, it is not required to be there.
If the statements are true, then it is not libel under US law. And there is the problem. Under UK law, the standard for libel is different than US law, and different under the laws of each country. In the US, you have to prove statements are not true, and even if they are not, that it was not published with malice, recklessness, or negligence. I have the standards in my summary judgment motion brief.
This is a Canadian company filing a complaint in a UK court, which raises the spector of why? Because it is harder to defend. Not only on the libel standard, but the other party would be harmed by going to defend it.
Some lawmakers are stupid. I testified before the Texas Senate on a bill to require censorware be provided with each computer sold in Texas. Texas already has a law that requires ISPs to have links to censorware.
The author of the bill introduced this because he received porn spam on his AOL account. He said that it was to difficult to download the censorware over the internet for anybody over 30. He also claimed that it cost only $1 or $2 for a manufacturer to provide censorware with each computer.
This was told to me by someone I worked for 20 years ago. This was a company that essentially copied hardware and sold it as their own.
The developed a terminal, which was a copy of one from another company. They didn't have time to finish, in time for a tradeshow, so they took a couple of boards from the system they were copying from and use that in their system. At the tradeshow, a copy of engineers saw the new terminal and said it looked just like theirs. The president of the company said, the exterior design was good, but the internals were completely different, and better. One of the engineers hit a few keystrokes, and the competing company's diagnostic display displayed.
As people who read my website know, I don't like bullies! Groups making empty threats like this, may be subject to consumer protection act violations. Even if a company does not not pay the fees, the expense of checking for compliance might be considered damages.
Under the definition it is not wiretapping! It is illegal use of a computer! If any one of us did this, we would be arrested. They accessed a computer without authorization, then installed software that stole information from it.
What about searchs done to find an excuse to fire someone?
In this type of situation, an employee complains of harassment/discrimination/retaliation and the company then searchs their computer and finds an email to a sick father and then fires the employee for using the computer for personal use. Or, after the person is fired, they seach the computer and then gives that reason for the termination.
The Supreme court that after acquired evidence cannot be used to justify termination, but says nothing on an investigation being a form of retaliation. That an investigation was done because a complaint have been made.
The instructions you provide do distribute your email! You can read the email address from the html. What you have to do, is modify the cgi to use an address within the cgi, not passed by the form!
I switched to using webforms on my site instead of mailto. Then I rewrote the code to hide the email address from the public since most of the form codes gets the email address from the webpage.
A while back, there was a story of parents patenting their children. This was where they and other parents of children with pseudoxanthoma elasticum ("PXE") started a tissue and sample bank that would help researchers to perform research on PXE. As a conditions of use, the researchers were required to share data and to provide the people involved in the tissue bank to discounts on drugs discovered using the samples.
This is another way to free the data provided by others in an altruistic manner.
Threatening to sue someone frivolously is grounds for a countersuit
To have a coutnersuit, you must have a suit. Maybe you mean a counterthreat? Actually you may be thinking of abuse of process, but to have that, you still must have filed suit.
Threatening to report someone to the police if they don't do what you ask is a crime
Not exactly. If you threaten criminal prosecution in exchange for pecuniary advantage (from Mass. law) it is extortion. If you say, return X, or I will report you for stealing X, it is not a crime. Since theft requires the intent to deprive the use. If I say, give me X, or I will report you for stealing Y, then it may be extortion.
They are just trying to confuse the issue. The real issue is the ability for the user to install Windows and not have to have Internet Explorer as part of the installation. If the files are in the same source, obj, dll is not the issue here. If in XP, Microsoft required you to install and run IE (and not be able to do it with Netscape) to activate the XP license, it would violate the intent of the order.
A boycott only works if you tell them you are boycotting because of the ads or practice. Otherwise, they will only think that you have enough gadgets, stuff, or they just plain lost a customer.
The reason why the web is so bad, is that the big corporations have limited control over it. Since they have limited control, they can't make as much money. They can't control what is said and by whom.
This is a prime example of hypocracy. The web is so bad, but when they can make money, they just jump in. Its too bad to broadcast on TV, but they broadcast it on the web for a fee. If they had more of it, they might have done it on pay-per-view.
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect that the RIAA was set-up on this. Since Felton not only is a boy-scout, but looks like one too, and Princeton can't be called a pirates cove, they can't use the pirate/hacker label to villify Felton. The MPAA had done this with the 2600 case.
But the judge can guide the jury by controlling the evidence that is admitted.
I see a nice suit design I like, program the material to stretch and shrink in the right places, and presto -- my outfit looks just like what I saw. Armani sees this and sends a pack of lawyers after me. I press a few keystrokes, it is now a shark fighting suit.
This is justification of forum shopping, at it's worse!
If the statements are true, then it is not libel under US law. And there is the problem. Under UK law, the standard for libel is different than US law, and different under the laws of each country. In the US, you have to prove statements are not true, and even if they are not, that it was not published with malice, recklessness, or negligence. I have the standards in my summary judgment motion brief.
This is a Canadian company filing a complaint in a UK court, which raises the spector of why? Because it is harder to defend. Not only on the libel standard, but the other party would be harmed by going to defend it.
The developed a terminal, which was a copy of one from another company. They didn't have time to finish, in time for a tradeshow, so they took a couple of boards from the system they were copying from and use that in their system. At the tradeshow, a copy of engineers saw the new terminal and said it looked just like theirs. The president of the company said, the exterior design was good, but the internals were completely different, and better. One of the engineers hit a few keystrokes, and the competing company's diagnostic display displayed.
This creates a false sense of attribution. This is what Ford claimed in it's case against 2600.
This also relates to the framing cases.
- You did not do anything illegal to get it
- They did not take sufficent precautions to prevent the leak.
I would guess you would be safe in releasing it. But, if it got to you, it probably got to many others so the leak would not be traceable.See a lawyer.
In this type of situation, an employee complains of harassment/discrimination/retaliation and the company then searchs their computer and finds an email to a sick father and then fires the employee for using the computer for personal use. Or, after the person is fired, they seach the computer and then gives that reason for the termination.
The Supreme court that after acquired evidence cannot be used to justify termination, but says nothing on an investigation being a form of retaliation. That an investigation was done because a complaint have been made.
Maybe everyone should use PGP at work?
Good point. But Javascript does not always work.
This is another way to free the data provided by others in an altruistic manner.
This is a prime example of hypocracy. The web is so bad, but when they can make money, they just jump in. Its too bad to broadcast on TV, but they broadcast it on the web for a fee. If they had more of it, they might have done it on pay-per-view.