+1 Smart. At last someone understands the order of the events. I especially like this part:
- Someone has this idea about how to lock a software activation to the user's hardware AND require them to validate the activation online, years before it can even be practically implemented - [In 1993] after successfully licensing said scheme to the gaming industry, this person approaches Microsoft with this activation scheme as a suggesting for protecting upcoming versions of of their software - MS says "No Thanks!" - MS then proceeds to implement a virtually identical protection scheme on their new Windows XP release. How could anyone criticize the patent holder, and find MS not liable, given that information ?
What Microsoft owes is about 10 years worth of licensing costs to the original inventor. Is that really so much to ask? Plus some punishment, like a couple million dollars fine, to say "Don't do that again"
>>>So extrapolating hollywood's action to other industries is a leap that I think is too big to make without some other supporting evidence.
You have a point. Let's just focus on the electronics industry: - Atari v. Commodore (settled out of court) - Atari v. Nintendo (Atari won) - U.S. v. Microsoft (MS determined to be an "abusive monopoly") - EU v. Microsoft (ditto) - Apple v. Microsoft (stole look-and-feel of Mac OS) - Eolas and University of California v. Microsoft (stole webbrowsing routines) - Sun v. Microsoft (stole Java routines) - Stac Electronics v. Microsoft (stole decompression software)
I know I'm being vague here, but I don't have a lot of time, and I figure you can do the research yourself into the cases.
he wasn't trying to pitch Babylon 5, he was trying to pitch a Star Trek series, which morphed into B5 when Paramount turned his idea down.
Yeah except that I have a Straczynski novel published in 1989. Here's what it says, "He [the main character] was anxious to get home from school and watch his favorite videonovel Babylon 5." There it is. Prior art..... predating DS9 by several years and invalidating your claim that JMS' story was originally called "Star Trek spinoff" and evolved into B5 after the 1991 rejection.
As for similarities: - shapeshifter in both shows - Dukhat and Dukat - Lyta and Leeta - a marketplace as a central location for stories - station run by a commander (not captain as was usually the case) - a commander with a dark past which makes his present life miserable - station near a wormhole that allows rapid travel to distant places for exploration
Paramount had copies of the entire B5 writer bible, plus nearly a season's worth of scripts, plus plans to launch UPN very soon, and you think they just politely ignored this excellent opportunity to copy (and hopefully kill-off) rival network PTEN's flagship show? If so, you're naive. If so, you've learned nothing about my story of how ABC directly stole Harlan Ellison's idea for a robot cop show, or the numerous other examples from Microsoft and other patent infringement cases.
But I guess I shouldn't expect anything more from an anonymous coward.
In the U.S. death threats like "I'm gonna kill you" are protected speech. The only time it's not protected is if the person has a gun and is in immediate vicinity of the target, neither of which is true in the case of an email.
Only if you believe authority comes from Congress.
I don't. I think authority comes from the People first, the State Constitution second, the State Legislatures third, the U.S. Constitution fourth, and the United States/Congress dead last. Authority flows from the People downward. That said - as the final holder of authority, we the people still retain the right of resale.
i.e. If I convert my wealth from gold, silver, or dollars to a DVD, TV, or computer, I also have an inalienable right to convert that material wealth back to dollars via the open market. Congress was NEVER granted the authority to stop sales of used products. See the constitution- "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Also see amendment 10.
>>>takes the UN a long time to crack down on other countries who do things that your country doesn't like, that is certainly true.
So in other words the UN does a lousy job of performing its primary objective - to bring a ceasefire to warring nations via the "war on one member is a war against all members" philosophy. So instead they get into internet regulation. Hmmm - I don't recall reading that in the original charter. (shrug). I always find it amusing how organizations start as ONE thing, fail to accomplish that goal, and then mutate into some other beast in order to justify its continued existence.
Europeans have probably noticed this with the Common Market which somehow evolved into the EU and is only a few years away from becoming a centralized pan-European government with tentacles in every facet of their lives.
Another example is the U.S. Federal Communications Commission which was just supposed to stop radio stations from broadcasting on the same frequencies, like a mediator, and now they think they can regulate content too, including banning nudity on private cable channels and private websites. What the heck? Nudity is the only reason to buy cable.;-)
Back to the UN - I hear the latest scheme is to directly tax citizens. I say - no taxation without direct representation.
I don't believe in re-inventing the wheel. The organization that regulates the assigning of telephone numbers has done a competent job since 1865, and I'm sure they could do an equally competent job over IP assignments.
>>>And people complain about socialism limiting freedoms...
Yes because a corporation is still just a corporation. They have a lot of power to make your life unhappy, but they still don't have the power to suck $$$ from your wallet, or jail you, or draft you to die in Arghanistan. Only government can do that, and therefore government is the greater evil.
>>>it matters less what actually happened and whether you did something wrong and more what it takes to get out of the case as unscathed as possible.
Unscathed huh? As cheap as possible, eh? Well then -
- gasoline to drive to Software Association's CEO's home - About $100 - cost of bullet - 50 cents - sense of knowing this bastard can no longer sue you - priceless ;-)
>>>an inquisitory e-mail from Jane's, demanding that he inform them of the source from which he obtained the books, and strongly suggesting that he not list them anymore because the reduced prices he gets for resale are "diminishing the perceived value of our products." >>>
Dear Janes,
No I will not tell you where I obtained my books. Nor will I tell you where I obtained my car, my computer, my PS2, my gamecube, my laptop, my television, my VCR, my bed, my refrigerator, or my house. It is NONE of your business. Furthermore I design missile launchers for a living. The next time we perform a test with live ammo, would you like me to target Janes central office? No? Well then I recommend you cease-and-desist with these legal threats.
Sincerely, the ebay seller.
(If somebody threatens you, then it's entirely appropriate to threaten them back. It's how our adversarial legal system works.)
>>>millions of dollars in phone lines, trunk hunting, modem bank
Nothing so exotic. Given the year (1993) it probably used BBS technology. You load the software, it generates an authentication key, and then it dials a 1-800 number to log into a central BBS for verification. Simple and effective.
Aside-
- Talking about this reminds me of when I logged-into the Atari BBS circa 1992 and bought myself an Atari 7800 for 50 bucks, plus a few carts for around $5 each. It was a primitive text-only system at a slow 1 kbit/s, but it worked.
On the day when an American is no longer able to buy a book, read it, and then resell it to somebody else, I'm moving to Russia where freedom still lives. (How delightfully ironic.)
good. Otherwise the place would be 99% full of copied, stolen software.You would think that software developers here would see what a bad thing that would be for the entire industry. Either you limit resale, or you limit copying. Or you all get jobs as bricklayers. Choose.
I'm sorry. What??? How is it acceptable that I was not able to sell my used DVD of "Hunt for Red October" due to takedowns? Sorry Mr. Anonymous but there is simply NO way you can justify that act. I have the inalienable *right* to sell my old unwanted CDs, DVD, or disks.
>>>They made their money on the sale, go make something else to make more.
"But that's too haaaard." It's easier to just keep selling the same thing over-and-over-and-over. Look at my multiple copies of the Beatles White album - one on record, one on cassette, one on CD, and a few select songs in MP3pro format that stopped working when the store went backrupt, so I had to buy them again in AAC format from iTunes. RIAA says, "The downloaders are ripping us off." Oh really??? Not from where I sit.
Anyway... Autodesk wants to do the same thing with customers buying NEW copies, not used copies off ebay.
Sorry but your strawman argument doesn't alter the fact that talking on a cellphone leads to more accidents, therefore the phones should be banned from usage while moving.
I saw a woman drive directly through a redlight recently. She saw the light, but it did not register inside her brain, because she was gabbing into her headphone. She sailed right through as if the light was green and almost got T-boned by another car. She was completely-and-totally oblivious to the world around her.
You see the human brain is NOT designed for multitasking. You either talk. Or you drive. Not both at the same time.
>>>>should be handled by insurance, not Big Brother. If you wreck, you pay higher premium.
Yesterday I saw a mother on television who was crying. Why? Because some woman driver was texting and never saw the 5-year-old little girl - just ran over her and only stopped because she wondered what that "thump" sound was.
So how exactly do you think an insurance company is supposed to handle that case? Triple the woman's premiums? No. There is a time and place for government to get involved, and this is that time. Just as DUI is banned so too should distracted driving be banned. The government's job is to protect our right to not be murdered, from those who are too stupid or selfish to care.
"In a more recent case involving software EULAs and first-sale rights, Davidson & Associates v. Internet Gateway Inc (2004), the first sale reasoning of the Softman court was challenged, with the court ruling "The first sale doctrine is only triggered by an actual sale. Accordingly, a copyright owner does not forfeit his right of distribution by entering into a licensing agreement." However, the point was moot as the court found the plaintiff's EULA, which prohibited resale, was binding on the defendants because "The defendants.. expressly consented to the terms of the EULA and Terms of Use by clicking 'I Agree' and 'Agree.'" - from wikipedia
I had a stupid shithead company do that to me when I tried to sell my DVD of "Hunt for Red October". For some reason they kept telling Ebay I was selling an illegal copy, even though it was clearly storebought. Ebay stupidly listens to these companies, so I eventually moved my selling over to Amazon. Way to shoot yourself in the foot ebay.
And sometimes it can lead to stupid decisions, like when my company leased a Tektronix Logic Analyzer for $5000 a year for six years. They could have just bought the thing for $20,000 at the start of the project and saved money.
Actually AOL was a perfectly good and usable service for its first ten years of online existence (1985-95). It wasn't until the pressure of tens of millions of newbies joining AOL that the servers were found to be inadequate for the task. I suspect we'll see the same will be true with Amazon and other cloud companies - good at first but then experiencing slowdown as their central servers become overwhelmed.
Another reason I'm inclined to believe the Inventor's story is because that's what corporations do. In 1991 a man named J.Michael Straczynski tried to sell his show Babylon 5 to Paramount. They rejected it. Then in 1992 they miraculously created another show that was a virtual clone of Babylon 5 (including the same character names and a shapeshifter). Straczynski chose not to sue, even though he probably could have won. See below.
Back in the 70s there was a similar case where Harlan Ellison tried to sell his story about a Robot Cop to ABC. They rejected his idea and then turned-around and released a virtual clone one year later. Ellison sued for copyright infringement and won.
Now I read this story about a man trying to sell his idea in 1993, and it gets rejected, but the corporation went-ahead and used the idea anyway.
>>>Does adding the "online" feature really make it novel?
I don't know but I do know neither my opinion nor your opinion matters - what matters is the opinion of the patent examiner who apparently decided "yes this is novel" and issued the patent for online key registration. What is in question here is not the patent itself, but whether or not Party A trampled-upon the 1993 patent and owes the Inventor some money.
As far as I can tell the answer is "yes".
Plus when you consider Party A's previous history of trampling on Mosaic and other parties' patents (even leading to an antitrust case before the U.S. and E.U. regulators), it appears Party A was a repeat patent offender throughout the 1990s. Therefore "yes" is likely the correct verdict.
>>>>>This type of weakening of police powers... groups like Yakuza
As scary as those types of groups (like KKK) may be, the group called "the police" are FAR scarier. Just check out these videos for yourself: - unlawful search of innocent driver http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2ZV_kQh048
- I could go on and on and on with vide-after-video, but instead I'll share my own personal story:
I was on a VACATION doing a crosscountry trip from California to D.C. when I got stopped in Texas. I was nowhere near a border but for some reason the border patrol stopped me and demanded to see inside my trunk. I asked for a warrant and they said they had none. They asked me to step out of my car, and made me stand for an HOUR in the cold night air while they kept demanding to see inside my trunk. They did a visual search of my driver seat, passenger seat, and rear seat, but kept insisting they want to see inside my trunk. Finally they said, "You're not going to let us see your trunk?" And I said "not without a warrant... no." They then ordered me to get in the car and drive off.
What. The. Hell. Are we no longer allowed to enjoy a simple vacation without getting harassed by the Yakuza...oops I mean the Gestapo... oops I mean the U.S Feds???
Actually there are a lot of laws in place to protect citizens from abuse by corporations, but many people don't avail themselves of those laws (typically due to ignorance). For example I saw a story on local tv about a guy who purchased some vitamins for a "trail bottle" of only $2. But the company charged him the full $99 instead. Then they send him another bottle for another $99. And another. And another. He stopped the automatic shipment, but the company refused to refund the money for the other bottles.
The guy just sat their on TV crying about losing ~$300, but if he had taken time to learn the law, he'd know all he has to do is return the bottles, with tracking confirmation, and then file a credit card dispute to recover the money. That's what the law states - If you return something, and prove your returned it, then a company MUST refund the money.
Anyway back to point - Laws already exist to protect the consumer. But most consumers don't know the law so they don't use it.
Judges are forced to do stuff like that, because the lazy legislators are not doing their job. As soon as this case hit the news, the legislators should have been passing laws or constitutional amendments that stated, "The People's movements shall not be tracked except when a warrant is issued by a judge."
Slashdot Mirror
+1 Smart. At last someone understands the order of the events. I especially like this part:
- Someone has this idea about how to lock a software activation to the user's hardware AND require them to validate the activation online, years before it can even be practically implemented
- [In 1993] after successfully licensing said scheme to the gaming industry, this person approaches Microsoft with this activation scheme as a suggesting for protecting upcoming versions of of their software
- MS says "No Thanks!"
- MS then proceeds to implement a virtually identical protection scheme on their new Windows XP release. How could anyone criticize the patent holder, and find MS not liable, given that information ?
What Microsoft owes is about 10 years worth of licensing costs to the original inventor. Is that really so much to ask? Plus some punishment, like a couple million dollars fine, to say "Don't do that again"
>>>So extrapolating hollywood's action to other industries is a leap that I think is too big to make without some other supporting evidence.
You have a point. Let's just focus on the electronics industry:
- Atari v. Commodore (settled out of court)
- Atari v. Nintendo (Atari won)
- U.S. v. Microsoft (MS determined to be an "abusive monopoly")
- EU v. Microsoft (ditto)
- Apple v. Microsoft (stole look-and-feel of Mac OS)
- Eolas and University of California v. Microsoft (stole webbrowsing routines)
- Sun v. Microsoft (stole Java routines)
- Stac Electronics v. Microsoft (stole decompression software)
I know I'm being vague here, but I don't have a lot of time, and I figure you can do the research yourself into the cases.
Anonymous Shithead writes:
he wasn't trying to pitch Babylon 5, he was trying to pitch a Star Trek series, which morphed into B5 when Paramount turned his idea down.
Yeah except that I have a Straczynski novel published in 1989. Here's what it says, "He [the main character] was anxious to get home from school and watch his favorite videonovel Babylon 5." There it is. Prior art..... predating DS9 by several years and invalidating your claim that JMS' story was originally called "Star Trek spinoff" and evolved into B5 after the 1991 rejection.
As for similarities:
- shapeshifter in both shows
- Dukhat and Dukat
- Lyta and Leeta
- a marketplace as a central location for stories
- station run by a commander (not captain as was usually the case)
- a commander with a dark past which makes his present life miserable
- station near a wormhole that allows rapid travel to distant places for exploration
Paramount had copies of the entire B5 writer bible, plus nearly a season's worth of scripts, plus plans to launch UPN very soon, and you think they just politely ignored this excellent opportunity to copy (and hopefully kill-off) rival network PTEN's flagship show? If so, you're naive. If so, you've learned nothing about my story of how ABC directly stole Harlan Ellison's idea for a robot cop show, or the numerous other examples from Microsoft and other patent infringement cases.
But I guess I shouldn't expect anything more from an anonymous coward.
In the U.S. death threats like "I'm gonna kill you" are protected speech. The only time it's not protected is if the person has a gun and is in immediate vicinity of the target, neither of which is true in the case of an email.
Only if you believe authority comes from Congress.
I don't. I think authority comes from the People first, the State Constitution second, the State Legislatures third, the U.S. Constitution fourth, and the United States/Congress dead last. Authority flows from the People downward. That said - as the final holder of authority, we the people still retain the right of resale.
i.e. If I convert my wealth from gold, silver, or dollars to a DVD, TV, or computer, I also have an inalienable right to convert that material wealth back to dollars via the open market. Congress was NEVER granted the authority to stop sales of used products. See the constitution- "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Also see amendment 10.
>>>takes the UN a long time to crack down on other countries who do things that your country doesn't like, that is certainly true.
So in other words the UN does a lousy job of performing its primary objective - to bring a ceasefire to warring nations via the "war on one member is a war against all members" philosophy. So instead they get into internet regulation. Hmmm - I don't recall reading that in the original charter. (shrug). I always find it amusing how organizations start as ONE thing, fail to accomplish that goal, and then mutate into some other beast in order to justify its continued existence.
Europeans have probably noticed this with the Common Market which somehow evolved into the EU and is only a few years away from becoming a centralized pan-European government with tentacles in every facet of their lives.
Another example is the U.S. Federal Communications Commission which was just supposed to stop radio stations from broadcasting on the same frequencies, like a mediator, and now they think they can regulate content too, including banning nudity on private cable channels and private websites. What the heck? Nudity is the only reason to buy cable. ;-)
Back to the UN - I hear the latest scheme is to directly tax citizens. I say - no taxation without direct representation.
I don't believe in re-inventing the wheel. The organization that regulates the assigning of telephone numbers has done a competent job since 1865, and I'm sure they could do an equally competent job over IP assignments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITU-T
>>>And people complain about socialism limiting freedoms...
Yes because a corporation is still just a corporation. They have a lot of power to make your life unhappy, but they still don't have the power to suck $$$ from your wallet, or jail you, or draft you to die in Arghanistan. Only government can do that, and therefore government is the greater evil.
>>>it matters less what actually happened and whether you did something wrong and more what it takes to get out of the case as unscathed as possible.
Unscathed huh? As cheap as possible, eh? Well then -
- gasoline to drive to Software Association's CEO's home - About $100
;-)
- cost of bullet - 50 cents
- sense of knowing this bastard can no longer sue you - priceless
>>>an inquisitory e-mail from Jane's, demanding that he inform them of the source from which he obtained the books, and strongly suggesting that he not list them anymore because the reduced prices he gets for resale are "diminishing the perceived value of our products."
>>>
Dear Janes,
No I will not tell you where I obtained my books. Nor will I tell you where I obtained my car, my computer, my PS2, my gamecube, my laptop, my television, my VCR, my bed, my refrigerator, or my house. It is NONE of your business. Furthermore I design missile launchers for a living. The next time we perform a test with live ammo, would you like me to target Janes central office? No? Well then I recommend you cease-and-desist with these legal threats.
Sincerely,
the ebay seller.
(If somebody threatens you, then it's entirely appropriate to threaten them back. It's how our adversarial legal system works.)
>>>millions of dollars in phone lines, trunk hunting, modem bank
Nothing so exotic. Given the year (1993) it probably used BBS technology. You load the software, it generates an authentication key, and then it dials a 1-800 number to log into a central BBS for verification. Simple and effective.
Aside-
- Talking about this reminds me of when I logged-into the Atari BBS circa 1992 and bought myself an Atari 7800 for 50 bucks, plus a few carts for around $5 each. It was a primitive text-only system at a slow 1 kbit/s, but it worked.
On the day when an American is no longer able to buy a book, read it, and then resell it to somebody else, I'm moving to Russia where freedom still lives. (How delightfully ironic.)
Anonymous shithead wrote:
good.
Otherwise the place would be 99% full of copied, stolen software.You would think that software developers here would see what a bad thing that would be for the entire industry.
Either you limit resale, or you limit copying.
Or you all get jobs as bricklayers.
Choose.
I'm sorry. What??? How is it acceptable that I was not able to sell my used DVD of "Hunt for Red October" due to takedowns? Sorry Mr. Anonymous but there is simply NO way you can justify that act. I have the inalienable *right* to sell my old unwanted CDs, DVD, or disks.
>>>They made their money on the sale, go make something else to make more.
"But that's too haaaard." It's easier to just keep selling the same thing over-and-over-and-over. Look at my multiple copies of the Beatles White album - one on record, one on cassette, one on CD, and a few select songs in MP3pro format that stopped working when the store went backrupt, so I had to buy them again in AAC format from iTunes. RIAA says, "The downloaders are ripping us off." Oh really??? Not from where I sit.
Anyway... Autodesk wants to do the same thing with customers buying NEW copies, not used copies off ebay.
Sorry but your strawman argument doesn't alter the fact that talking on a cellphone leads to more accidents, therefore the phones should be banned from usage while moving.
I saw a woman drive directly through a redlight recently. She saw the light, but it did not register inside her brain, because she was gabbing into her headphone. She sailed right through as if the light was green and almost got T-boned by another car. She was completely-and-totally oblivious to the world around her.
You see the human brain is NOT designed for multitasking. You either talk. Or you drive. Not both at the same time.
>>>>should be handled by insurance, not Big Brother. If you wreck, you pay higher premium.
Yesterday I saw a mother on television who was crying. Why? Because some woman driver was texting and never saw the 5-year-old little girl - just ran over her and only stopped because she wondered what that "thump" sound was.
So how exactly do you think an insurance company is supposed to handle that case? Triple the woman's premiums? No. There is a time and place for government to get involved, and this is that time. Just as DUI is banned so too should distracted driving be banned. The government's job is to protect our right to not be murdered, from those who are too stupid or selfish to care.
I bet Autodesk will argue this precedent:
"In a more recent case involving software EULAs and first-sale rights, Davidson & Associates v. Internet Gateway Inc (2004), the first sale reasoning of the Softman court was challenged, with the court ruling "The first sale doctrine is only triggered by an actual sale. Accordingly, a copyright owner does not forfeit his right of distribution by entering into a licensing agreement." However, the point was moot as the court found the plaintiff's EULA, which prohibited resale, was binding on the defendants because "The defendants .. expressly consented to the terms of the EULA and Terms of Use by clicking 'I Agree' and 'Agree.'" - from wikipedia
I had a stupid shithead company do that to me when I tried to sell my DVD of "Hunt for Red October". For some reason they kept telling Ebay I was selling an illegal copy, even though it was clearly storebought. Ebay stupidly listens to these companies, so I eventually moved my selling over to Amazon. Way to shoot yourself in the foot ebay.
And sometimes it can lead to stupid decisions, like when my company leased a Tektronix Logic Analyzer for $5000 a year for six years. They could have just bought the thing for $20,000 at the start of the project and saved money.
Actually AOL was a perfectly good and usable service for its first ten years of online existence (1985-95). It wasn't until the pressure of tens of millions of newbies joining AOL that the servers were found to be inadequate for the task. I suspect we'll see the same will be true with Amazon and other cloud companies - good at first but then experiencing slowdown as their central servers become overwhelmed.
P.S.
Another reason I'm inclined to believe the Inventor's story is because that's what corporations do. In 1991 a man named J.Michael Straczynski tried to sell his show Babylon 5 to Paramount. They rejected it. Then in 1992 they miraculously created another show that was a virtual clone of Babylon 5 (including the same character names and a shapeshifter). Straczynski chose not to sue, even though he probably could have won. See below.
Back in the 70s there was a similar case where Harlan Ellison tried to sell his story about a Robot Cop to ABC. They rejected his idea and then turned-around and released a virtual clone one year later. Ellison sued for copyright infringement and won.
Now I read this story about a man trying to sell his idea in 1993, and it gets rejected, but the corporation went-ahead and used the idea anyway.
History repeats itself.
>>>Does adding the "online" feature really make it novel?
I don't know but I do know neither my opinion nor your opinion matters - what matters is the opinion of the patent examiner who apparently decided "yes this is novel" and issued the patent for online key registration. What is in question here is not the patent itself, but whether or not Party A trampled-upon the 1993 patent and owes the Inventor some money.
As far as I can tell the answer is "yes".
Plus when you consider Party A's previous history of trampling on Mosaic and other parties' patents (even leading to an antitrust case before the U.S. and E.U. regulators), it appears Party A was a repeat patent offender throughout the 1990s. Therefore "yes" is likely the correct verdict.
>>>>>This type of weakening of police powers... groups like Yakuza
As scary as those types of groups (like KKK) may be, the group called "the police" are FAR scarier. Just check out these videos for yourself:
- unlawful search of innocent driver http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2ZV_kQh048
- unlawful arrest of Professor Gates http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n15KsSLQhBg
- eating of an innocent pastor by police. His story http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUzd7G875Hc
- Actual video of beating http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgejD6c-9YA
- unknown person getting beaten http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrVbWYyfOMI
- guy has already surrendered, but the cps start kicking him in the head http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd5yrq2QB-g
- I could go on and on and on with vide-after-video, but instead I'll share my own personal story:
I was on a VACATION doing a crosscountry trip from California to D.C. when I got stopped in Texas. I was nowhere near a border but for some reason the border patrol stopped me and demanded to see inside my trunk. I asked for a warrant and they said they had none. They asked me to step out of my car, and made me stand for an HOUR in the cold night air while they kept demanding to see inside my trunk. They did a visual search of my driver seat, passenger seat, and rear seat, but kept insisting they want to see inside my trunk. Finally they said, "You're not going to let us see your trunk?" And I said "not without a warrant... no." They then ordered me to get in the car and drive off.
What. The. Hell. Are we no longer allowed to enjoy a simple vacation without getting harassed by the Yakuza...oops I mean the Gestapo... oops I mean the U.S Feds???
Actually there are a lot of laws in place to protect citizens from abuse by corporations, but many people don't avail themselves of those laws (typically due to ignorance). For example I saw a story on local tv about a guy who purchased some vitamins for a "trail bottle" of only $2. But the company charged him the full $99 instead. Then they send him another bottle for another $99. And another. And another. He stopped the automatic shipment, but the company refused to refund the money for the other bottles.
The guy just sat their on TV crying about losing ~$300, but if he had taken time to learn the law, he'd know all he has to do is return the bottles, with tracking confirmation, and then file a credit card dispute to recover the money. That's what the law states - If you return something, and prove your returned it, then a company MUST refund the money.
Anyway back to point - Laws already exist to protect the consumer. But most consumers don't know the law so they don't use it.
Judges are forced to do stuff like that, because the lazy legislators are not doing their job. As soon as this case hit the news, the legislators should have been passing laws or constitutional amendments that stated, "The People's movements shall not be tracked except when a warrant is issued by a judge."