Well.. the application states it is a *calculation*. Calculations are mathematics, and mathematics is not patentable. This is a non-starter, especially after Bilski.
Well.. He can put it like he wants, however, there are data protection laws in lots of countries. If you does not want to abide by them, maybe he wants to pay the penalties that such behaviour will incur
Or jury.. however, in this case the amount probably rather puts it into a small claims court, hence a judge. Maybe they should take the case to Judge Judy;)
Secondly, a hotel can refuse service to anyone, at anytime, for any reason. Hotels are privately-owned businesses. If you don't like the hotels exercising their private property rights, you're free to not patronize The Palazzo or The Venetian. Furthermore, the hotel reserves the right to determine what constitutes "disorderly conduct" or using "false pretenses" to obtain accommodations. Renting out a suite is an obvious attempt to deprive CEA of the money they're asking for a booth.
Well.. Even hotels are privately-owned enterprises, they are no sheriffs. If someone books a room in a hotel, a legal contract is formed. Even the hotel must obey by the terms of the contract, or they are in breach of contract and can be ask to pay compensation if necessary by trial in court.
False pretenses must be proven. A question if the use of the room is limited could make the argument that there was no attempt of a false pretense since then you would not ask any questions which could result in an answer you would want to avoid.
The CEA is not party to the contract between the hotel and the patron and hence due to privity in contract cannot ask any other terms to be enforced. All terms would have to been made explicitly communicate by the hotel to the patron before the contract was finalized, i.e. the room was booked.
IAAL, however, as usual, this does not constitute legal advise. If you need legal advise to your particular situation, please retain a properly accredited lawyer for the jurisdiction in question.
Civil cases do not really consider an "absolute" guilt. In civil cases it is decided whose story in balance with the other story is a little bit more likely to be right.
In any case, in both jurisdiction, first it has to be shown that there is a prima facie case, i.e. that the statements are really made etc.
If this hurdle is taken by the plaintiff, the respondent can either fight the submission that they made such statements, or make submissions that it was not slander/libel for other reasons.
However, the burden is just to show that it is a little bit less libel than it would be. Proof as an absolute or beyond reasonable doubt is never necessary in civil cases, that burden is only on prosecutors in criminal cases.
So you never have to absolutely proof anything. You just have to ensure than it is less likely that it is more likely that your defense is valid than not.
The difference in different jurisdictions are what kind of arguments can be made, i.e. what standards must be met in checking if information is right or wrong. In the UK a higher duty is required to make sure that information is confirmed, in particular if it is written or broad casted by media organisations or newspapers. As I understand it, in Canada and US this requirement is a little lower.
Furthermore, public figures in Canada and US have less right of privacy as for instance in the UK.
Disclaimer: As always these statements are my opinion and do not constitute legal advise. If someone reading them needs legal advise, they are advised to consult a practicing lawyer in the particular jurisdiction in question.
You open up the floodgates with a new defence of ignorance, stupidity and incompetence. The solution's worse than the problem.
Indeed, recklessness would not be punished that way.
The average person isn't an expert on everything, so generally their comments will reflect that. If someone said "Dell laptops are crap, my computer won't even boot up" and the fact is they just did something stupid like erase the MBR, that shouldn't be considered libel because they were not experts.
Well, in fact there are different standards. Since the requirement is to do "reasonable" research of a fact, the standard of what is reasonable for an expert and a layperson would be different.
An incorporation is a legal but not natural person. Hence, it might be difficult to claim that the statement comes from the incorporation. Furthermore, the board of directors has also fiduciary duties in regards to the incorporation and can be made personally liable if they neglect in those duties. Since you would likely be (one of) the director(s), you might still be liable for it.
Even if you are acquitted, you still will have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars (or pounds), as well as a great deal of your time, defending yourself.
If you win in a civil matter, you can ask the court to order that the other party must pay your legal costs. This is in particular true for vexatious or misconceived claims.
Usually a plaintiff (claimant in UK) must also show that either the plaintiff or the defendant have a reasonable association with the jurisdiction in which they taker legal actions. I think, a Canadian suing another Canadian, or a US citizen doing the same to another US citizen would have trouble to establish the necessary requirement.
Furthermore, it needs to be considered, that the harm is also different depending to the notoriety of a person. A celebrity known in the UK (and maybe earning income through advertising inside the UK) will have a different possibility of showing actual harm and damages created than someone who does not know anybody in the UK and will never earn any income that is related to the UK.
Since libel law in England places the burden of proof on the defendant (this would be unconstitutional in America, due to that pesky "innocent until proven guilty" thing), meaning that Singh now has to PROVE that the statements were indeed bogus. Due to a rather creative take on the English language, the presiding judge decided that to rule the statements bogus, it must be proven that Singh not only knew that the BCA's claims were false, Singh also has to prove that the BCA knew that these statements were false. That is not reasonable. That is insane.
"innocent until proven guilty" is the standard of proof in criminal law, which is the same in US, UK and AFAIK all common law countries. Libel is civil law and the standard of proof in common law is "preponderance of the evidence", i.e the balance of the probability of which side might be just a little more right.
The burden of proof often shifts back and force in civil trials. The plaintiff (claimant in UK) must first make a prima facie case, to which then the respondent would either dispute the facts or raise a valid defense.
The issue in place is what defenses are deem valid in the particular jurisdiction, not who has the burden of proof.
I wonder why people always start claiming their rights so late.
It is not easy to file a law suit. It takes you away from focusing on your main business. You need to figure out if it is worth to do. You need to get some facts that you are sure that your case has merit and will not immediately thrown out. And lastly, the lawyers like to earn as much as possible;)
The Vatican is not part of the EU, but has a special agreement with the EU to i.e. use the Euro.
The Vatican could very likely not join the EU due to several obstacles. The EU is based on a separation of Church and State, however 5 member states have a State Church. However, far more important, religious discrimination is unlawful within the EU. Hence, as long as offices and jobs in the Vatican require the holder to be a Catholic, the Vatican would have tremendous problems complying with all EU law that would be required in that case.
I do not think the Vatican could get an exception like the UK get a lot of exceptions, since the discrimination in in the preamble of the Treaty of Rome and hence probably it is impossible to exempt from them.
The Patriarch of Alexandria is the Archbishop of Alexandria and Cairo, Egypt. Historically, this office has included the designation of Pope (etymologically 'Father', like Abbot etc.), and did so earlier than that of the Bishop of Rome. The first Bishop to be called Papas was the thirteenth Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria Papas Heraclas.[1]
Well... who wants to bet that this will be settled? Do to the secret called judicial estoppel, the music industry could be barred to argue in the opposite directions they have done in the file sharing trials.
One could argue that the DMCA and other US new copyright legislation is incompatible with Art. 8 of the US constitution. For along time it is not about advancing sciences and promoting useful art anymore. And usually when you get an exclusive right that costs the public, the public should also have a benefit from it. That use to be called fair use. Leading copyright experts say the balance had been lost after 1903
As soon as an EU directive is passed, each member state of the EU has only a set time to implement that directive into local law. Otherwise the parties disadvantaged can sue the government that has not implemented the directive for damages.
EU is not a democracy, but a modern form of aristocratic absolutism!
It is not only clicking and allowing to run. DirectX has (at least in the past) had no security concepts at all, while javascript had always had "sandbox" concepts. Hence, a malicious website could inject running code into a windows machine with someone browsing with IE without any questions asked. And since most windows users I know always browse the Internet with the administrator privileges enabled, it is obvious what can happen.
Surely, the only 100% safe computer has no connection to the Internet and can also physically not be accessed by anyone but the owner. However, there is a wide margin of security levels aside of that. The biggest margin of error is the user, while the system can help, and the right FLOSS used and properly setup has a very high level of security in this regard.
True. Consumer laws are different in different jurisdictions. In the EU i.e. non-negotiated terms in a consumer contract are only enforceable if they are reasonable.
In the US consumer laws are often not as advantageous to consumers. However, I wonder if more people would go to court because of deception, some of those practices would disappear very fast since defending such practices in court all the time might be very disruptive to the business.
Slashdot Mirror
Well.. the application states it is a *calculation*. Calculations are mathematics, and mathematics is not patentable. This is a non-starter, especially after Bilski.
Well.. RICO is criminal law and not civil law. It would not allow the patrons to ask for their money back or other related damages.
Well.. He can put it like he wants, however, there are data protection laws in lots of countries. If you does not want to abide by them, maybe he wants to pay the penalties that such behaviour will incur
1) Whom would a judge side with?
Or jury.. however, in this case the amount probably rather puts it into a small claims court, hence a judge. Maybe they should take the case to Judge Judy ;)
Secondly, a hotel can refuse service to anyone, at anytime, for any reason. Hotels are privately-owned businesses. If you don't like the hotels exercising their private property rights, you're free to not patronize The Palazzo or The Venetian. Furthermore, the hotel reserves the right to determine what constitutes "disorderly conduct" or using "false pretenses" to obtain accommodations. Renting out a suite is an obvious attempt to deprive CEA of the money they're asking for a booth.
Well.. Even hotels are privately-owned enterprises, they are no sheriffs. If someone books a room in a hotel, a legal contract is formed. Even the hotel must obey by the terms of the contract, or they are in breach of contract and can be ask to pay compensation if necessary by trial in court.
False pretenses must be proven. A question if the use of the room is limited could make the argument that there was no attempt of a false pretense since then you would not ask any questions which could result in an answer you would want to avoid.
The CEA is not party to the contract between the hotel and the patron and hence due to privity in contract cannot ask any other terms to be enforced. All terms would have to been made explicitly communicate by the hotel to the patron before the contract was finalized, i.e. the room was booked.
IAAL, however, as usual, this does not constitute legal advise. If you need legal advise to your particular situation, please retain a properly accredited lawyer for the jurisdiction in question.
Civil cases do not really consider an "absolute" guilt. In civil cases it is decided whose story in balance with the other story is a little bit more likely to be right.
In any case, in both jurisdiction, first it has to be shown that there is a prima facie case, i.e. that the statements are really made etc.
If this hurdle is taken by the plaintiff, the respondent can either fight the submission that they made such statements, or make submissions that it was not slander/libel for other reasons.
However, the burden is just to show that it is a little bit less libel than it would be. Proof as an absolute or beyond reasonable doubt is never necessary in civil cases, that burden is only on prosecutors in criminal cases.
So you never have to absolutely proof anything. You just have to ensure than it is less likely that it is more likely that your defense is valid than not.
The difference in different jurisdictions are what kind of arguments can be made, i.e. what standards must be met in checking if information is right or wrong. In the UK a higher duty is required to make sure that information is confirmed, in particular if it is written or broad casted by media organisations or newspapers. As I understand it, in Canada and US this requirement is a little lower.
Furthermore, public figures in Canada and US have less right of privacy as for instance in the UK.
Disclaimer: As always these statements are my opinion and do not constitute legal advise. If someone reading them needs legal advise, they are advised to consult a practicing lawyer in the particular jurisdiction in question.
You open up the floodgates with a new defence of ignorance, stupidity and incompetence. The solution's worse than the problem.
Indeed, recklessness would not be punished that way.
The average person isn't an expert on everything, so generally their comments will reflect that. If someone said "Dell laptops are crap, my computer won't even boot up" and the fact is they just did something stupid like erase the MBR, that shouldn't be considered libel because they were not experts.
Well, in fact there are different standards. Since the requirement is to do "reasonable" research of a fact, the standard of what is reasonable for an expert and a layperson would be different.
An incorporation is a legal but not natural person. Hence, it might be difficult to claim that the statement comes from the incorporation. Furthermore, the board of directors has also fiduciary duties in regards to the incorporation and can be made personally liable if they neglect in those duties. Since you would likely be (one of) the director(s), you might still be liable for it.
The issue with the CHRT is not libel but discrimination. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Human_Rights_Commission_free_speech_controversies has probably some better explanations about the controversy.
Even if you are acquitted, you still will have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars (or pounds), as well as a great deal of your time, defending yourself.
If you win in a civil matter, you can ask the court to order that the other party must pay your legal costs. This is in particular true for vexatious or misconceived claims.
... but to say we're a bunch of peons living under a tyrant is not only incorrect, its callously wrong.
Would that be considered libelous? ;)
Usually a plaintiff (claimant in UK) must also show that either the plaintiff or the defendant have a reasonable association with the jurisdiction in which they taker legal actions. I think, a Canadian suing another Canadian, or a US citizen doing the same to another US citizen would have trouble to establish the necessary requirement.
Furthermore, it needs to be considered, that the harm is also different depending to the notoriety of a person. A celebrity known in the UK (and maybe earning income through advertising inside the UK) will have a different possibility of showing actual harm and damages created than someone who does not know anybody in the UK and will never earn any income that is related to the UK.
Since libel law in England places the burden of proof on the defendant (this would be unconstitutional in America, due to that pesky "innocent until proven guilty" thing), meaning that Singh now has to PROVE that the statements were indeed bogus. Due to a rather creative take on the English language, the presiding judge decided that to rule the statements bogus, it must be proven that Singh not only knew that the BCA's claims were false, Singh also has to prove that the BCA knew that these statements were false. That is not reasonable. That is insane.
"innocent until proven guilty" is the standard of proof in criminal law, which is the same in US, UK and AFAIK all common law countries. Libel is civil law and the standard of proof in common law is "preponderance of the evidence", i.e the balance of the probability of which side might be just a little more right.
The burden of proof often shifts back and force in civil trials. The plaintiff (claimant in UK) must first make a prima facie case, to which then the respondent would either dispute the facts or raise a valid defense.
The issue in place is what defenses are deem valid in the particular jurisdiction, not who has the burden of proof.
On the other side of the big ocean, cockney riddles are less likely to be understood ;)
Gordon Brown might invoke Anti-Terrorism legislation again as he did against the banks from Iceland ;)
Well, I would be interested to see the argument for jurisdiction in the UK court :)
I wonder why people always start claiming their rights so late.
It is not easy to file a law suit. It takes you away from focusing on your main business. You need to figure out if it is worth to do. You need to get some facts that you are sure that your case has merit and will not immediately thrown out. And lastly, the lawyers like to earn as much as possible ;)
The Vatican is not part of the EU, but has a special agreement with the EU to i.e. use the Euro.
The Vatican could very likely not join the EU due to several obstacles. The EU is based on a separation of Church and State, however 5 member states have a State Church. However, far more important, religious discrimination is unlawful within the EU. Hence, as long as offices and jobs in the Vatican require the holder to be a Catholic, the Vatican would have tremendous problems complying with all EU law that would be required in that case.
I do not think the Vatican could get an exception like the UK get a lot of exceptions, since the discrimination in in the preamble of the Treaty of Rome and hence probably it is impossible to exempt from them.
I would think the trademark of "Pope" should actually belong to the Orthodox Church:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_of_Alexandria
The Patriarch of Alexandria is the Archbishop of Alexandria and Cairo, Egypt. Historically, this office has included the designation of Pope (etymologically 'Father', like Abbot etc.), and did so earlier than that of the Bishop of Rome. The first Bishop to be called Papas was the thirteenth Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria Papas Heraclas.[1]
Well... who wants to bet that this will be settled? Do to the secret called judicial estoppel, the music industry could be barred to argue in the opposite directions they have done in the file sharing trials.
IAAL IANYLATINLA
One could argue that the DMCA and other US new copyright legislation is incompatible with Art. 8 of the US constitution. For along time it is not about advancing sciences and promoting useful art anymore. And usually when you get an exclusive right that costs the public, the public should also have a benefit from it. That use to be called fair use. Leading copyright experts say the balance had been lost after 1903
IAAL
Because Spain has no choice!
As soon as an EU directive is passed, each member state of the EU has only a set time to implement that directive into local law. Otherwise the parties disadvantaged can sue the government that has not implemented the directive for damages.
EU is not a democracy, but a modern form of aristocratic absolutism!
IAAL
It is centimetre, not centimeter ;)
It is not only clicking and allowing to run. DirectX has (at least in the past) had no security concepts at all, while javascript had always had "sandbox" concepts. Hence, a malicious website could inject running code into a windows machine with someone browsing with IE without any questions asked. And since most windows users I know always browse the Internet with the administrator privileges enabled, it is obvious what can happen.
Surely, the only 100% safe computer has no connection to the Internet and can also physically not be accessed by anyone but the owner. However, there is a wide margin of security levels aside of that. The biggest margin of error is the user, while the system can help, and the right FLOSS used and properly setup has a very high level of security in this regard.
True. Consumer laws are different in different jurisdictions. In the EU i.e. non-negotiated terms in a consumer contract are only enforceable if they are reasonable.
In the US consumer laws are often not as advantageous to consumers. However, I wonder if more people would go to court because of deception, some of those practices would disappear very fast since defending such practices in court all the time might be very disruptive to the business.