It is true that state corporate law generally requires managers to maximize shareholder value. However, managers are generally also protected by the "business judgment rule" which gives them wide discretion in the pursuit of profits. Essentially, any rational reasoning behind a business decision will be upheld. It is almost certain that managers could legitimately refuse to do business with China on the basis that doing so would create a backlash in the U.S. and decrease profits more than entering the China market would increase profits. There is no conceivable situation in which corporate managers could be held liable for failing to enter the China market.
The Courts of Appeal make law all the time by deciding what the Constitution means. So do the trial level courts. Any time there is a new issue that doesn't fit within existing doctrine, courts must make new law. It is unavoidable; even by abstaining from decision they make new law. Note that the Supreme Court only takes about 80 cases a year out of literally thousands. The Supreme Court (by its own choice) does not correct every single error in a lower court. There are thousands of issues upon which Courts of Appeal have made new law that the Supreme Court probably would have decided otherwise on. They simply aren't considered important enough by the current Justices. But those cases are still the law. In sum, it is very much the job of an appeals court to decide what the Constitution means in any constitutional case that comes before it.
Wrong. The federal government almost certainly has the power to issue a national ID under the commerce clause. However, it looks like this bill is unconstitutional because Congress may not "commandeer" state legislatures and executives into implementing its regulatory schemes. See the case New York v. United States.
BUT Congress has two alternatives: it can either issue its own national ID card (but of course state agencies could completely ignore it), or it can give states money to implement the system (which the states can of course refuse).
Actually, in appellate courts, it's almost always listed appellant (party taking the appeal) vs. appellee. Meaning, if the defendant lost at the lower court, he will be listed first.
Getting a patent does not give you the right to violate other laws, including antitrust laws. If you do, it is within the power of the courts to impose compulsory licensing.
Going to law school still requires an undergraduate degree (in the US). Law schools still want students with degrees in technical disciplines.
With that said, having an engineering degree is still a novelty in law school, but it's wearing off fast. Pretty soon they too will be a dime a dozen, and you'll need at least a Masters or a PhD to have an edge in law school admissions at the best schools.
Do you have any evidence to support this? Even if you do, is this relevant to the discussion at hand? Are GM and Ford attempting to crank out robots in pre-WWII facilities? I would bet no.
FYI, top corporate lawyers already charge $500/hour. Understand though, that you are not just paying for his time-lawyers have enormous overhead costs. Office space, secretaries, paralegals, IT support, training support, research costs (LexisNexis and Westlaw research is ENOURMOUSLY expensive).
With that said, $500/hour is still a lot, but usually that is what partners charge, and they do the most complex and important work. For lower level stuff they will delegate to an associate for $150-$300/hour.
Just keep in mind, lawyers are not actually making $500/hour when they charge you that much-a lot goes to support costs.
Good point. What people should know however, is that jurisdictional requirements for civil trials are much looser.
If this defendant were sued in a US court, all the plaintiff has to show is a combination of "minimal contacts" and "purposeful availment" of the laws of the jurisdiction he was being sued in. In this case, the defendant had a reasonable expectation that his warez would be distributed in the US (and he was probably distributing software created by US companies), so a US civil court would probably have jurisdiction.
If the court finds judgment for the plaintiff, it could probably easily seize any US assets of the defendant to pay off the damage award, and probably convince Australia to also seize any assets there.
The point is, even if he is not subject to extradition for a criminal charge, if a US company decides to sue him, he will probably be bankrupted (if he isn't already).
Because whenever the military awards a single development contract, the project comes in overbudget, late, and sometimes Congress scraps the whole program (See Comanche).
Hopefully the military gets more than it paid for; why are you hoping for failure?
This is false. There is an emergency medical services exception to the rule that doctors need informed consent before operating. This is obvious; you can't get consent from someone who is unconscious or incoherent.
However, you CAN be sued for providing negligent medical service given in an emergency situation. In a case like a car accident, the jury would also have to consider the fact that it was an extreme emergency in non-hospital environment, and probably very few medical supplies and equipment. But given all those circumstances, if the doctor was still negligent he will be held responsible. And why not? Just because you are being a good samaritan doesn't mean you should have a license to use a lower standard or care in your work.
The legal system is not perfect, but it irks me when people assume lawyers are all evil.
The American legal system generally does not award attorney's fees (unlike European civil law systems). There is a chance that legal fees can be awarded, but it's not as likely as most people might think.
Most major law firms are now switching to Word, and paying consultants thousands of dollars to automate the conversion of documents from WP to Word. Big corporate clients just demand that you use Word. Smaller firms may still be stuck on WP though.
Class actions do not remove the rights of others to sue individually; they can opt out. Additionally, the judge can disallow the joining of a class if it would not represent the best interests of the class. But that's exactly the point-who would sue IBM for the $100-$200 a hard drive is worth? The only viable way to hold them accountable is with a class action. Class actions keep companies in check and make sure they don't screw us over in the future. The fact that lawyers take 1/3 is a different issue altogether.
If the company modifies its contractual obligations and you don't, you have not paid what lawyers call "consideration" and the modification will not be enforceable (they can still sue you). The basic principle is that you cannot get something for nothing.
However, if in the modification you agree to non-trivially modify your obligations as well, it will be binding.
Slashdot Mirror
It is true that state corporate law generally requires managers to maximize shareholder value. However, managers are generally also protected by the "business judgment rule" which gives them wide discretion in the pursuit of profits. Essentially, any rational reasoning behind a business decision will be upheld. It is almost certain that managers could legitimately refuse to do business with China on the basis that doing so would create a backlash in the U.S. and decrease profits more than entering the China market would increase profits. There is no conceivable situation in which corporate managers could be held liable for failing to enter the China market.
The Courts of Appeal make law all the time by deciding what the Constitution means. So do the trial level courts. Any time there is a new issue that doesn't fit within existing doctrine, courts must make new law. It is unavoidable; even by abstaining from decision they make new law. Note that the Supreme Court only takes about 80 cases a year out of literally thousands. The Supreme Court (by its own choice) does not correct every single error in a lower court. There are thousands of issues upon which Courts of Appeal have made new law that the Supreme Court probably would have decided otherwise on. They simply aren't considered important enough by the current Justices. But those cases are still the law. In sum, it is very much the job of an appeals court to decide what the Constitution means in any constitutional case that comes before it.
Wrong. The federal government almost certainly has the power to issue a national ID under the commerce clause. However, it looks like this bill is unconstitutional because Congress may not "commandeer" state legislatures and executives into implementing its regulatory schemes. See the case New York v. United States.
BUT Congress has two alternatives: it can either issue its own national ID card (but of course state agencies could completely ignore it), or it can give states money to implement the system (which the states can of course refuse).
Actually, in appellate courts, it's almost always listed appellant (party taking the appeal) vs. appellee. Meaning, if the defendant lost at the lower court, he will be listed first.
Getting a patent does not give you the right to violate other laws, including antitrust laws. If you do, it is within the power of the courts to impose compulsory licensing.
Fair use applies mainly to scholarly enterprises-ringtones on your cell phone do not exactly count as "scholarly."
Going to law school still requires an undergraduate degree (in the US). Law schools still want students with degrees in technical disciplines.
With that said, having an engineering degree is still a novelty in law school, but it's wearing off fast. Pretty soon they too will be a dime a dozen, and you'll need at least a Masters or a PhD to have an edge in law school admissions at the best schools.
Do you have any evidence to support this? Even if you do, is this relevant to the discussion at hand? Are GM and Ford attempting to crank out robots in pre-WWII facilities? I would bet no.
FYI, top corporate lawyers already charge $500/hour. Understand though, that you are not just paying for his time-lawyers have enormous overhead costs. Office space, secretaries, paralegals, IT support, training support, research costs (LexisNexis and Westlaw research is ENOURMOUSLY expensive).
With that said, $500/hour is still a lot, but usually that is what partners charge, and they do the most complex and important work. For lower level stuff they will delegate to an associate for $150-$300/hour.
Just keep in mind, lawyers are not actually making $500/hour when they charge you that much-a lot goes to support costs.
Good point. What people should know however, is that jurisdictional requirements for civil trials are much looser.
If this defendant were sued in a US court, all the plaintiff has to show is a combination of "minimal contacts" and "purposeful availment" of the laws of the jurisdiction he was being sued in. In this case, the defendant had a reasonable expectation that his warez would be distributed in the US (and he was probably distributing software created by US companies), so a US civil court would probably have jurisdiction.
If the court finds judgment for the plaintiff, it could probably easily seize any US assets of the defendant to pay off the damage award, and probably convince Australia to also seize any assets there.
The point is, even if he is not subject to extradition for a criminal charge, if a US company decides to sue him, he will probably be bankrupted (if he isn't already).
Because whenever the military awards a single development contract, the project comes in overbudget, late, and sometimes Congress scraps the whole program (See Comanche).
Hopefully the military gets more than it paid for; why are you hoping for failure?
This is false. There is an emergency medical services exception to the rule that doctors need informed consent before operating. This is obvious; you can't get consent from someone who is unconscious or incoherent.
However, you CAN be sued for providing negligent medical service given in an emergency situation. In a case like a car accident, the jury would also have to consider the fact that it was an extreme emergency in non-hospital environment, and probably very few medical supplies and equipment. But given all those circumstances, if the doctor was still negligent he will be held responsible. And why not? Just because you are being a good samaritan doesn't mean you should have a license to use a lower standard or care in your work.
The legal system is not perfect, but it irks me when people assume lawyers are all evil.
Harvard calls its teaching assistants TFs (teaching fellows)...
The American legal system generally does not award attorney's fees (unlike European civil law systems). There is a chance that legal fees can be awarded, but it's not as likely as most people might think.
Most major law firms are now switching to Word, and paying consultants thousands of dollars to automate the conversion of documents from WP to Word. Big corporate clients just demand that you use Word. Smaller firms may still be stuck on WP though.
Class actions do not remove the rights of others to sue individually; they can opt out. Additionally, the judge can disallow the joining of a class if it would not represent the best interests of the class. But that's exactly the point-who would sue IBM for the $100-$200 a hard drive is worth? The only viable way to hold them accountable is with a class action. Class actions keep companies in check and make sure they don't screw us over in the future. The fact that lawyers take 1/3 is a different issue altogether.
If the company modifies its contractual obligations and you don't, you have not paid what lawyers call "consideration" and the modification will not be enforceable (they can still sue you). The basic principle is that you cannot get something for nothing.
However, if in the modification you agree to non-trivially modify your obligations as well, it will be binding.
Short answer, get a (good) lawyer.