People allow stores to search their bags. No one complains when x-rayed, sniff, gaused, and searched at any airport or public building.
It's all for our safety/protection/the children, so what are you complaining about? Remember the terrorist bombing/shooting/robbery or Flight 880/Denny's/Flight 007?
Your forgot one thing!!! Contracts!!!!p>
Many companies require you to sign an agreement that they will not leave for X years or have to pay $$ to leave.
Just like a company requiring reimbursement of the moving expenses that they paid out, if you leave before one or two years.
They would not only have to show libel, but also show that their announcement was directed at RegLand Inc.
To show libel they must prove that:
A defamatory communication about the complainant,
Which was untrue
acting with actual malice, in the sense of knowledge that the
communication was false or having reckless disregard of its truth or falsity
This is the standard for public figure libel. Even if they are not a public figure, the issue, being of public interest, would make them a limited purpose public figure.
In Texas there is no anti-SLAPP statute which would have made it easier to dismiss. But, the courts agree that this type of case should be dismissed as early as possible, if it is proper to dismiss.
Of couse, we don't have all the facts and are speculating here.
In general, if you don't respond to a complaint in a lawsuit, you lose by default.
This is what happened here.
You may or may not agree with the rights of Guiness to the domain name, but this person did not want to be heard on the facts.
WIPO had actually looked beyond the complaint, and did at least a minimal analysis. In court, the judge would just issue a default and then just look at damages.
I was involved the the Boston Computer Society and the DPMA.
For the tech group, we invited people from Microsoft, but warned them that they will be shreded if they only brought marketing types.
We also provided Microsoft with a pool of beta people (when beta really meant beta). We had the founders NuMega, but had a little debugging tutorial first. We had the president of Knowledge Dynamics (Install Pro) give a presentation on compression. This included a presentation on his new technique which was to be included in the next version of the product.
You can expect some marketing, but you must let them know what is expected. They will also want to know the demographics of the group.
Yeah, home is claiming that documents that they provide to anyone are trade secrets.
Even when there is a copyright, there is some copying permitted by the fair use doctrine.
They must know this is bogus, but they know they can get away with it by bullying people with abusive legal process?
Why would anyone be suprised?
Mattel / TLC / MSI sued me because they didn't like their critism. Mattel / TLC / MSI sued the CPHack guys because they didn't like people seeing their dirty laundry. Mattel sued the MPAA because they didn't like the Barbie Girl. Mattel lost the Barbie Girl case, the judge said that a company can't use trademark law to silence criticism.
Only by taking on some of these abuses, we can win.
I tried getting a refund for the Windows that I didn't agree with the EULA. I called Microsoft and they sent me to the computer dealer, the computer dealer sent me to Microsoft.
Please explain to me where to get the refund if I do not agree to the EULA?
It depends on what biometric data is stored. If it's finger-print and and retina scan, than not. If it's how many teeth you have then so. Just because it says biometric does not mean that they are using good biometric data.
No matter what they do, it will be hacked. The question is how easy it is to hack.
A computer is able to be considered a fax machine if it's hooked to a phone line and a printer. The SPAM does not have to come as a fax transmission.
It provides for statutory damages. If you go for harassment, you would have to prove how much the spam hurt you. Under the SPAM fax law, there is a $500 statutory damages.
Hey, this can help get kids to read. They will spend all their times in libraries trying to get the bounty.
Reasons for some of these suits.
on
Anonymity
·
· Score: 2
The Boston globe talked about this back in 1999. There are some reasons for dropping it, but many of the cases are used to get the identity of the user. If you are accusing someone of violating a non-disclosure, but then find out that this person is not covered by it. Or if you accuse someone of employment harassment and find out that they are not an employee of the company.
But in many cases, companies use this to get the identity of the user and then fire them.
This is a thin line. Where do we place it?
People must take responsibility for what they post.
We are all to be barcoded and watched by satellite.
I believe that an ISP should not be required to disclose the information without noticing a person to disclose about. They need an oportunity to dismiss or quash.
But, you cannot determine if the person actually defamed without being able to determine the knowledge of that person. To defame, you must publish false statements with malice, recklessness, or negligence (in the case of a private figure). Now, how can you determine that level without knowing who that person is?
What about other laws that are violated? Sexual harassment, retaliation under the anti-discrimination laws, disclosure of confidential information? You can't determine all of that w/o knowing the identity of the person.
But, in the case where something is clearly opinion, the person should have that information blocked.
Maybe have some determination of being false and having damage.
It's better than the ones that put on the bottom of their spam, "we apologize if this is unwanted..it won't happen again." Yeah, right until they do the next round of SPAM.
It's as good as the phone message, "your call is important to us, please wait on hold."
I had auto shop in the 7th and 8th grade along with wood shop, and metal sop, drafting, and photography. A majority of my time in high school was in the computer lab. I did spend some time in the darkroom, and aviation lab.
If you actually had sufficient cerebral activity to read the site, you would have realized I didn't work for Mattel. I worked for a company that Mattel bought. That Mattel was using frivilous litigation (as the did with the CPHack case, and Aqua) to try to shut up critism.The abuse must be stopped!
Keep in mind, you may be the next person a large company may want to shut.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, maybe metal detectors because of the Oklahoma bombing? Yes, a metal detector would have stopped them from driving a truck into the building.
Why not require everyone to travel nude, so they can't hide anything?
Or asking for deposits to get on a waiting list to be able to buy it.
Remember the company that was mentioned here twice with the Turbo prop, retinal scanning flying pack?
Then the MPAA will file a lawsuit about it. It will then get mirrored until they issue SPAM subpoenas.
Then Jack Valenti will make a copy of a movie off cable to shwo piracy is going on.
I'm having Deja Vue all over again.
It's all for our safety/protection/the children, so what are you complaining about? Remember the terrorist bombing/shooting/robbery or Flight 880/Denny's/Flight 007?
Do you have any cites on this?
Just like a company requiring reimbursement of the moving expenses that they paid out, if you leave before one or two years.
They would not only have to show libel, but also show that their announcement was directed at RegLand Inc.
To show libel they must prove that:
- A defamatory communication about the complainant,
- Which was untrue
- acting with actual malice, in the sense of knowledge that the
communication was false or having reckless disregard of its truth or falsity
This is the standard for public figure libel. Even if they are not a public figure, the issue, being of public interest, would make them a limited purpose public figure.In Texas there is no anti-SLAPP statute which would have made it easier to dismiss. But, the courts agree that this type of case should be dismissed as early as possible, if it is proper to dismiss.
Of couse, we don't have all the facts and are speculating here.
Back in 1982-1984 I had done this in two different applications.
This is what happened here.
You may or may not agree with the rights of Guiness to the domain name, but this person did not want to be heard on the facts.
WIPO had actually looked beyond the complaint, and did at least a minimal analysis. In court, the judge would just issue a default and then just look at damages.
- fly to Japan
- buy a DVD player
- fly back to the US
- wire it up.
- relax and enjoy the movie
Then, the next weekend, you want to watch a Spanish DVD. No problem.....See there are ways around access control.For the tech group, we invited people from Microsoft, but warned them that they will be shreded if they only brought marketing types.
We also provided Microsoft with a pool of beta people (when beta really meant beta). We had the founders NuMega, but had a little debugging tutorial first. We had the president of Knowledge Dynamics (Install Pro) give a presentation on compression. This included a presentation on his new technique which was to be included in the next version of the product.
You can expect some marketing, but you must let them know what is expected. They will also want to know the demographics of the group.
Even when there is a copyright, there is some copying permitted by the fair use doctrine.
They must know this is bogus, but they know they can get away with it by bullying people with abusive legal process?
Why would anyone be suprised?
Mattel / TLC / MSI sued me because they didn't like their critism. Mattel / TLC / MSI sued the CPHack guys because they didn't like people seeing their dirty laundry. Mattel sued the MPAA because they didn't like the Barbie Girl. Mattel lost the Barbie Girl case, the judge said that a company can't use trademark law to silence criticism.
Only by taking on some of these abuses, we can win.
They will only permit P2P if there is a mechanism that checks a user's authorization before permitting a P2P transfer.p>
I want the refund for the Win98 and Win95 that I NEVERuse.
Please explain to me where to get the refund if I do not agree to the EULA?
No matter what they do, it will be hacked. The question is how easy it is to hack.
A computer is able to be considered a fax machine if it's hooked to a phone line and a printer. The SPAM does not have to come as a fax transmission.
It provides for statutory damages. If you go for harassment, you would have to prove how much the spam hurt you. Under the SPAM fax law, there is a $500 statutory damages.
Hey, this can help get kids to read. They will spend all their times in libraries trying to get the bounty.
But in many cases, companies use this to get the identity of the user and then fire them.
This is a thin line. Where do we place it?
People must take responsibility for what they post.
We are all to be barcoded and watched by satellite.
But, you cannot determine if the person actually defamed without being able to determine the knowledge of that person. To defame, you must publish false statements with malice, recklessness, or negligence (in the case of a private figure). Now, how can you determine that level without knowing who that person is?
What about other laws that are violated? Sexual harassment, retaliation under the anti-discrimination laws, disclosure of confidential information? You can't determine all of that w/o knowing the identity of the person.
But, in the case where something is clearly opinion, the person should have that information blocked.
Maybe have some determination of being false and having damage.
It's as good as the phone message, "your call is important to us, please wait on hold."
We represent God and it has been brought to our attention that you have been attempting to reverse engineer his work.
You are hereby ordered to cease this immediately. If you continue with this action, we will bring legal action.
Please note, our client has never lost a case. Furthermore, he is the final judge in all matters in this universe.
If you actually had sufficient cerebral activity to read the site, you would have realized I didn't work for Mattel. I worked for a company that Mattel bought. That Mattel was using frivilous litigation (as the did with the CPHack case, and Aqua) to try to shut up critism.The abuse must be stopped!
Keep in mind, you may be the next person a large company may want to shut.