You had me up until the point where you pretentiously and erroneously used the word "whom". Then I just stopped reading. Please, people, for the love of god(s), if you're going to take the time to use a word nobody uses anymore, please also take the time to learn its correct usage.
Clearly he meant "we" in the combined first and third person, not the combined first and second. It doesn't have to include you. If you're not familiar with common usage for the word "we", I suggest you look it up.
Who owns my iPhone?* That is the heart of the question.
I would think the heart of the question is Who Owns the App Store? Are you really suggesting that Apple be forced to sell particular items through their own store? If that's the case, who would you envision as the arbiter of what they should be forced to carry?
No. Nobody is suggesting that. Apple should be forced to stop forcing us to buy at their App Store. Why there isn't already an antitrust action against them for that is beyond me.
It would be different if Apple's app store were just one app provider, but it's the only way to get apps onto the phone!
...It's not like controlling behaviour is something new to Apple.
That's true, this is what those who pay attention have come to expect from Apple. Even so, Apple's conduct goes beyond common standards for what is acceptable in our society, as codified in antitrust law that has been duly enacted by our elected representatives.
There, fixed that for [me].
Who owns my iPhone?* That is the heart of the question.
I would think the heart of the question is Who Owns the App Store? Are you really suggesting that Apple be forced to sell particular items through their own store? If that's the case, who would you envision as the arbiter of what they should be forced to carry?
No. Nobody is suggesting that. Apple should be forced to stop forcing us to buy at their App Store. Why there isn't already an antitrust action against them for that is beyond me.
It would be different if Apple's app store were just one app provider, but it's the only way to get apps onto the phone!
...It's not like controlling behaviour is something new to Apple.
That's true, this is what those who pay attention have come to expect from Apple. Even so, Apple's conduct goes beyond common standards for what is acceptable in our society, as codified in antitrust law that has been duly enacted by our elected representatives.
Market share has nothing to do with the definition of "Monopoly". As defined, a monopoly exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.
Exactly. The market share necessary to be a monopoly is whatever market share is necessary for the firm to use its market share to control the market, exercising unilateral action to move the market away from competitive equilibrium (if they need to cooperate with other players in order to move the market from competitive equilibrium it's oligopoly). This could be a lot, or a little, depending on the particulars of the market; it's therefore often useless to try to use market share to determine monopoly, instead you have to look at competitive or anti-competitive behavior.
And in related news... Ford Cars use only Ford Engines and Parts...
I've never repaired a Ford, but when I was repairing my Chrysler I bought parts made by ACDelco. ACDelco is owned by GM, which is (*gasp*) Chrysler's competitor!
Wait till you get to Evidence / Trial Advocacy... it's the exact same reason why you object, knowing you're going to get overruled. You can't preserve something for appeal that you never brought up / filed at trial.
Yeah, I should've been more clear, this has been pointed out in another response. What I should have said is that our Civ Pro prof wants us to always file them even when they are basically groundless. Even if we know we'll be denied the motion and lose on appeal we're still supposed to file to get the other side to react, and to take a chance at a hail-mary pass for relatively little cost.
P.S. Cardozo quotes in a sig win my instant approval.
So while China only gets to shut down.cn domains, the United States gets to shut down not only.us domains but also.com,.net and.org domains? How convenient for the United States.
Hey, them's the fruits of having built the whole damn thing in the first place. The US was being nice by even allowing country TLDs to exist.
I assume this is to create possible avenues for appeal?
Sometimes, but sometimes not even that. I should have said "even if we know they are groundless." You want to file any motion that has a good justification even if you know the trial judge won't buy it because you can appeal the judge's denial of your motion; that's obviously sound practice. Where it gets a bit dodgy is that our prof. tells us to always file them even if we know all our arguments suck, because it forces them to react, and who knows, you might win because of an inattentive or sympathetic (or senile) judge. The latter is doubly true with tech cases where you can add ignorant to that list. He says any good lawyer on the other side will be doing the same and to be prepared for that as well, so apparently this is standard practice.
As one example: there are specific sects permitted "conscientious objector" status.
Does that include people who think that unprovoked, offensive wars amount to mass murder? If not, then yes that is blatant favoritism.
No, it only includes people who think all wars are wrong, or whose religion prohibits them from fighting even in wars they think are just. For example, the vast majority of Quakers refused to fight in WWII and the Civil War, despite strongly believing the US was on the right side of both, so Quakers get to claim CO status. The system is rigged up that way, so people who only have a problem with unprovoked, offensive wars are SOL.
Sounds like what this attorney was doing is fair game. If they can go after everyone with boilerplate, why can't people defend themselves with boilerplate? This fine, upstanding attorney is just making it happen, and taking one small step toward evening the odds. Of course the corporate behemoth doesn't like that; it thrives on being the beneficiary of a huge power imbalance.
Can the USCG attorneys be disbarred over this? I don't think you can shut down a attorney like this.
Yes, but whether they will be is another matter. Filing frivolous lawsuits is often grounds for disbarment at the discretion of the relevant bar. If the court gives USCG sanctions under Rule 11 it's more likely, but the fact that they're a corporate entity makes it less likely. Like I said, at the bar's discretion. Let's wait and see what happens.
I would think that an attorney suing another attorney is fairly common. Remember one party can sue anyone for any reason, especially in a civil matter.
Actually, if you file a suit which is clearly frivolous you can face sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. You *can* sue anyone for anyone reason, but if the suit had no chance of winning then the attorney who filed it can face sanctions.
Their problem is that by costing them money, Syfert hasn't actually done anything wrong. It is perfectly legal for Syfert to sell these self-help booklets; even if it is not legal, they have no standing to sue....
Maybe they're hoping he'll just fold, not want to spend the time and money to defend himself (you know, like all the other victims.) Can it be that they believe they are that scary? To an attorney?
Basically, they're hoping he went to a crappy law school. Anyone who went to a decent law school will know that they will win dismissal for lack of standing (or alternatively, failure to state a claim) right off the bat, and will file a motion to dismiss (which takes very little time and money, it's only the very first stage of a lawsuit) and stick to their guns. So they're hoping not only that he will be intimidated, but that he will be ignorant enough to still be intimidated even though he is in a stronger position.
The USCG doesn't care whether Syfert folds, they just want to discourage other attorneys from offering the same type of legal assistance. Despite the outcome of this suit, the next guy who thinks about offering $20 self-representation instruction packets will have one more cost to consider when assessing the profitability of that product -- the cost and hassle of being sued (successfully or not) by the USCG.
In that case, this should be dismissed under anti-SLAPP statutes, since what you described is the textbook definition of a SLAPP.
I scanned their complaint and one point they make is arguably valid. According to the article itself, three of the motions fail. But they keep having to respond to them because they're always automatically filed by the purchaser of the forms. This presumably is a waste of the court's time.
But I bet this happens all the time with real lawyers running the show.
You are correct. I am taking Civil Procedure currently and our professor has advised us to always file certain motions (motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, motion for summary judgment, motion for judgment as a matter of law, and if we lose, motion for a new trial) even if we know they will be denied.
How can a domain name be illegal? I'ts like saying 42 is illegal or 123 somewhere st is illegal.
Hey dumbass, read the whole thread before you reply. Nobody said the domain name was illegal. Legal possessions used for illegal activity are subject to seizure. If they find a car filled with drugs, they seize the car. They're not saying the car's "illegal" when they do that.
Snatching domain names is simply put censorship we don't like what your saying so we will try stop people from hearing it.
Somehow I suspect it's not so much "we don't like what your [sic] saying" as "you are illegally distributing others' property for profit." It would only be censorship if it were the former rather than the latter.
If they are selling fakes it's pretty easy to follow the money trail and stop them from getting paid by people in the US even for electronic goods, if they are not getting paid it's not a criminal issue.
Whether they're getting paid or not, it's still illegal, and they're not selling the "electronic goods", they're getting money from advertisers. Besides, the harm to US companies is not from these web sites making money, it's from the illegal copies being distributed, forcing companies to compete with free versions of their own products.
So if a foreign company sells counterfeit designer clothing in the US, we can't seize the counterfeit goods until the foreign legal system says to?
Those goods are physically in the United States and are being sold by people in the United States. Big difference.
The electrons comprising the files in question are physically in the US. The magnetic fields on my hard drive once I've downloaded a torrent are physically in the US. How is it different?
The companies in question are committing the crimes on US soil by sending their data to US users
By that logic China should be able to shut down American websites that contain material the Chinese government considers subversive.
No, by that logic China should be able to block American websites from Chinese access and deny them.cn TLDs. Nothing about shutting them down, nobody said US government should be able to seize servers on foreign soil either. The entire debate was about seizing US domain names.
There's absolutely no legal reason why the US government can't use their authority to prevent that, especially for domains ending in.com,.org, or.net whose registration is under US jurisdiction anyway.
Perhaps the US government shouldn't have control over.com,.org and.net domains?
Slashdot Mirror
So, does this thing replace phosphorous in DNA/RNA, ATP, and phospholipids?
If you replace the phosphorous in ATP with arsenic, does it become ATA?
Sexual treason? Sounds awesome!
I'm almost certain you need to be a US citizen before you can be charged with treason against the US....
That's why...they're gonna charge him with treason against Australia!
You had me up until the point where you pretentiously and erroneously used the word "whom". Then I just stopped reading. Please, people, for the love of god(s), if you're going to take the time to use a word nobody uses anymore, please also take the time to learn its correct usage.
Why do we, as customers, take this?
Who's "we"? I don't have any apple products...
Clearly he meant "we" in the combined first and third person, not the combined first and second. It doesn't have to include you. If you're not familiar with common usage for the word "we", I suggest you look it up.
Who owns my iPhone?* That is the heart of the question.
I would think the heart of the question is Who Owns the App Store? Are you really suggesting that Apple be forced to sell particular items through their own store? If that's the case, who would you envision as the arbiter of what they should be forced to carry?
No. Nobody is suggesting that. Apple should be forced to stop forcing us to buy at their App Store. Why there isn't already an antitrust action against them for that is beyond me.
It would be different if Apple's app store were just one app provider, but it's the only way to get apps onto the phone!
...It's not like controlling behaviour is something new to Apple.
That's true, this is what those who pay attention have come to expect from Apple. Even so, Apple's conduct goes beyond common standards for what is acceptable in our society, as codified in antitrust law that has been duly enacted by our elected representatives. There, fixed that for [me].
Who owns my iPhone?* That is the heart of the question.
I would think the heart of the question is Who Owns the App Store? Are you really suggesting that Apple be forced to sell particular items through their own store? If that's the case, who would you envision as the arbiter of what they should be forced to carry?
No. Nobody is suggesting that. Apple should be forced to stop forcing us to buy at their App Store. Why there isn't already an antitrust action against them for that is beyond me.
It would be different if Apple's app store were just one app provider, but it's the only way to get apps onto the phone!
...It's not like controlling behaviour is something new to Apple.
That's true, this is what those who pay attention have come to expect from Apple. Even so, Apple's conduct goes beyond common standards for what is acceptable in our society, as codified in antitrust law that has been duly enacted by our elected representatives.
I mean, the Spengler Aglet Polisher Attachment alone is worth its weight in gold.
But will it clean my ball sack?
Market share has nothing to do with the definition of "Monopoly". As defined, a monopoly exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.
Exactly. The market share necessary to be a monopoly is whatever market share is necessary for the firm to use its market share to control the market, exercising unilateral action to move the market away from competitive equilibrium (if they need to cooperate with other players in order to move the market from competitive equilibrium it's oligopoly). This could be a lot, or a little, depending on the particulars of the market; it's therefore often useless to try to use market share to determine monopoly, instead you have to look at competitive or anti-competitive behavior.
And in related news ... Ford Cars use only Ford Engines and Parts ... unless you root it.
....And I don't have to do anything special to install non-ford parts.
I think he was trying to tell you that there are no non-Ford parts that work in Ford cars. Which makes his point even dumber if you ask me.
And in related news ... Ford Cars use only Ford Engines and Parts ...
I've never repaired a Ford, but when I was repairing my Chrysler I bought parts made by ACDelco. ACDelco is owned by GM, which is (*gasp*) Chrysler's competitor!
I don't think Apple remembers what desperation feels like. ;)
Maybe not, but I'm sure they remember what it tastes like.
Wait till you get to Evidence / Trial Advocacy... it's the exact same reason why you object, knowing you're going to get overruled. You can't preserve something for appeal that you never brought up / filed at trial.
Yeah, I should've been more clear, this has been pointed out in another response. What I should have said is that our Civ Pro prof wants us to always file them even when they are basically groundless. Even if we know we'll be denied the motion and lose on appeal we're still supposed to file to get the other side to react, and to take a chance at a hail-mary pass for relatively little cost.
P.S. Cardozo quotes in a sig win my instant approval.
So while China only gets to shut down .cn domains, the United States gets to shut down not only .us domains but also .com, .net and .org domains? How convenient for the United States.
Hey, them's the fruits of having built the whole damn thing in the first place. The US was being nice by even allowing country TLDs to exist.
I assume this is to create possible avenues for appeal?
Sometimes, but sometimes not even that. I should have said "even if we know they are groundless." You want to file any motion that has a good justification even if you know the trial judge won't buy it because you can appeal the judge's denial of your motion; that's obviously sound practice. Where it gets a bit dodgy is that our prof. tells us to always file them even if we know all our arguments suck, because it forces them to react, and who knows, you might win because of an inattentive or sympathetic (or senile) judge. The latter is doubly true with tech cases where you can add ignorant to that list. He says any good lawyer on the other side will be doing the same and to be prepared for that as well, so apparently this is standard practice.
Does that include people who think that unprovoked, offensive wars amount to mass murder? If not, then yes that is blatant favoritism.
No, it only includes people who think all wars are wrong, or whose religion prohibits them from fighting even in wars they think are just. For example, the vast majority of Quakers refused to fight in WWII and the Civil War, despite strongly believing the US was on the right side of both, so Quakers get to claim CO status. The system is rigged up that way, so people who only have a problem with unprovoked, offensive wars are SOL.
Sounds like what this attorney was doing is fair game. If they can go after everyone with boilerplate, why can't people defend themselves with boilerplate? This fine, upstanding attorney is just making it happen, and taking one small step toward evening the odds. Of course the corporate behemoth doesn't like that; it thrives on being the beneficiary of a huge power imbalance.
Can the USCG attorneys be disbarred over this? I don't think you can shut down a attorney like this.
Yes, but whether they will be is another matter. Filing frivolous lawsuits is often grounds for disbarment at the discretion of the relevant bar. If the court gives USCG sanctions under Rule 11 it's more likely, but the fact that they're a corporate entity makes it less likely. Like I said, at the bar's discretion. Let's wait and see what happens.
I would think that an attorney suing another attorney is fairly common. Remember one party can sue anyone for any reason, especially in a civil matter.
Actually, if you file a suit which is clearly frivolous you can face sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. You *can* sue anyone for anyone reason, but if the suit had no chance of winning then the attorney who filed it can face sanctions.
Their problem is that by costing them money, Syfert hasn't actually done anything wrong. It is perfectly legal for Syfert to sell these self-help booklets; even if it is not legal, they have no standing to sue....
Maybe they're hoping he'll just fold, not want to spend the time and money to defend himself (you know, like all the other victims.) Can it be that they believe they are that scary? To an attorney?
Basically, they're hoping he went to a crappy law school. Anyone who went to a decent law school will know that they will win dismissal for lack of standing (or alternatively, failure to state a claim) right off the bat, and will file a motion to dismiss (which takes very little time and money, it's only the very first stage of a lawsuit) and stick to their guns. So they're hoping not only that he will be intimidated, but that he will be ignorant enough to still be intimidated even though he is in a stronger position.
You can use your neighbor if their dog peed on the street in front of your house.
If I can use my neighbor, why can't I own a Canadian?
The USCG doesn't care whether Syfert folds, they just want to discourage other attorneys from offering the same type of legal assistance. Despite the outcome of this suit, the next guy who thinks about offering $20 self-representation instruction packets will have one more cost to consider when assessing the profitability of that product -- the cost and hassle of being sued (successfully or not) by the USCG.
In that case, this should be dismissed under anti-SLAPP statutes, since what you described is the textbook definition of a SLAPP.
I scanned their complaint and one point they make is arguably valid. According to the article itself, three of the motions fail. But they keep having to respond to them because they're always automatically filed by the purchaser of the forms. This presumably is a waste of the court's time.
But I bet this happens all the time with real lawyers running the show.
You are correct. I am taking Civil Procedure currently and our professor has advised us to always file certain motions (motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, motion for summary judgment, motion for judgment as a matter of law, and if we lose, motion for a new trial) even if we know they will be denied.
How can a domain name be illegal? I'ts like saying 42 is illegal or 123 somewhere st is illegal.
Hey dumbass, read the whole thread before you reply. Nobody said the domain name was illegal. Legal possessions used for illegal activity are subject to seizure. If they find a car filled with drugs, they seize the car. They're not saying the car's "illegal" when they do that.
Snatching domain names is simply put censorship we don't like what your saying so we will try stop people from hearing it.
Somehow I suspect it's not so much "we don't like what your [sic] saying" as "you are illegally distributing others' property for profit." It would only be censorship if it were the former rather than the latter.
If they are selling fakes it's pretty easy to follow the money trail and stop them from getting paid by people in the US even for electronic goods, if they are not getting paid it's not a criminal issue.
Whether they're getting paid or not, it's still illegal, and they're not selling the "electronic goods", they're getting money from advertisers. Besides, the harm to US companies is not from these web sites making money, it's from the illegal copies being distributed, forcing companies to compete with free versions of their own products.
Those goods are physically in the United States and are being sold by people in the United States. Big difference.
The electrons comprising the files in question are physically in the US. The magnetic fields on my hard drive once I've downloaded a torrent are physically in the US. How is it different?
By that logic China should be able to shut down American websites that contain material the Chinese government considers subversive.
No, by that logic China should be able to block American websites from Chinese access and deny them .cn TLDs. Nothing about shutting them down, nobody said US government should be able to seize servers on foreign soil either. The entire debate was about seizing US domain names.
Perhaps the US government shouldn't have control over .com, .org and .net domains?
Maybe, but who would have jurisdiction then?