The thing with US Federal law though is that treaties override constitutional laws. Laws Constitution Treaties. So any major unconstitutional idea that Has To Be Passed For Your Safety will be written and signed as a treaty with another country if it is too controversial for the public to accept.
I am happy to report that the TiVo seebs hacked on is working just fine as a plain and ordinary DVR. It came up just fine after I reattached the hard disk cable that seebs had forgotten to reattach (although he did put all the old screws back in).
It's replaying today's stage of the Tour right now.
I've been messing around with GarageBand for a few months. While I can play bass and guitar, I have no idea how an actual song recording is constructed. I love having this so I can see how the various tracks are put together to make an entire song.
If you didn't like the settlement, you could opt out. The members of a class in a class action always have the right to get out and either pursue their own lawsuits or not bring them
Of course, since you're just a troll, you don't care. I doubt you are even a member of the class.
He should have devoted the small amount of time it takes to fdisk the hard disk, or implemented a system which installs and uninstalls applications as needed depending on the person logged into the pc. They exist. Use them.
Or, he could use software from companies that don't require him to do this. In fact, it appears the raid did prompt Ernie Ball to audit its computers and use. Ernie Ball decided 1) it did not want to deal with companies that treated it badly; and 2) it did not need the products those companies sold.
Sounds simple to me. Why are you so stressed about it? Do companies have some sort of DUTY to use only Microsoft software?
Courts do not do these things. You only imagine they do because you are ignorant and stupid. THE COURT MUST HAVE JURISDICTION. The court cannot order anyone except the parties before it to do anything.
Again, you cite to a case without a clue. The parties to United States v. Microsoft (not DOJ) were, duh, the United States and Microsoft. The court had personal jurisdiction over Microsoft and could enter and enforce orders.
The United States District Court for the District of Utah DOES NOT have personal jurisdiction over anyone but IBM in this case.
The District Court does not have the POWER to enter the order you envision.
Stop and think for just a fucking second and you will see how ridiculous you are being. You don't even have to practice in federal courts to figure this out.
Who will be enjoined? Linus Torvalds? RMS? You? Me? Guess what, Braniac, the only parties to the litigation are SCO and IBM. The District Court does not have jurisdiction over anyone else.
The difference in Sun v. Microsoft was that Microsoft was a party and subject to the court's orders.
Listen up, motherfucker, if you or one of your fucking customers calls any of my clients, I WILL SUE YOUR ASS. You personally will pay damages. You personally will have a judgment on your credit report. You peronally will be on the hook for violations of the TCPA.
Your bullshit constitutional arguments have been rejected by every federal appellate court to have considered them.
I sued four bullshit mortgage companies today. Each of them will pay. You will pay, too.
Am I over-generalizing? Yes. Do I think the music industry has become a cartel that will squash independent music and technological innovation? Most definitely. But let's be real. I like REM, but my guess is that Michael Stipe has as much business acumen as a piece of toast, and that without a major lable he'd still be plugging away at some bar in Athens, GA.
REM actually was pretty damn smart. They hired their own lawyer before signing deals. He gets to worry about their deals so they can just play.
IA_AL. A malicious prosecution suit is a follow-up to the original suit. One of the elements of an MP claim is that the original plaintiff loses the original suit.
SCO started this case in state court in Utah. SCO alleged both SCO and IBM were Delaware corporations, making them technically "residents" of the same state. Unfortunately, IBM is actually a New York corporation. Therefore, there is federal court jurisdiction to hear the case (residents of different states and amount of controversy in excess of $75,000.00).
SCO obviously wanted the case in state court. It very carefully pled no federal law claims such as copyright or patent. It pled only state law claims for unfair competetion, etc. The only reason to do this would be if SCO wanted this in state court.
IBM removed (that's the verb) the case to federal court - United States District Court for the District of Utah on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Not a thing SCO can do about it.
Why did SCO start the case in state court and why did IBM remove it? The state law claims of unfair competition, etc. are the same (the classic Erie decision still applies for all you budding 1Ls out there). The case will still physically remain in Utah.
IBM gets Rule 26(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under Rule 26(a), the parties must disclose to each other, without even a formal request, the most relevant documents to their case. The disclosure must be done relatively quickly. I doubt there is a similar automatic disclosure in the Utah rules. In state court, SCO might have been able to drag the discovery process out for at least a few months. It could keep its source code hidden for a while. Under the federal rules, it cannot do that. By removing the case to federal court, IBM undercut a big hunk of SCO strategy - namely FUD.
Obviously, the most relevant documents to this case are the source code listings SCO alleges IBM stole. These must be produced to IBM and produced quickly. There willl probably be a protective order preventing the rest of us from seeing them, but IBM gets to see them very soon (like maybe this month).
If there was no theft of code by IBM, expect a quick resolution of the case. If there was theft from Project Monterey in violation of the SCO-IBM agreement, expect a slugfest over intent and the the measure of damages.
In addition, by not even knowing the corporate home of its adversary, SCO comes in looking foolish. How hard would it be to determine IBM is a New York corporation, not a Delaware corporation? Not hard at all. Take a look at any of its SEC filings. It was a stupid mistake by SCO and although it does not logically follow that the rest of its allegations are undermined, it does decrease credibility of SCO and its attorneys.
The interesting question (at least for entertainment value) is who subpoenas RMS first to testify.
Slashdot Mirror
Why?
Just to piss off internet libertards like you. No other reason. It's all about you.
Do you have a source supporting this claim?
I would love to see a citation for the claim that taconite tailings are "highly toxic".
Big win, little clam.
Xenu loves you.
Xenu loves you, little clam!
If you take the brown acid, you'll definitely be able to see the difference as well as hear it.
RICO has both a criminal prong and a civil prong.
I'd like to see the complaint itself. Most of them are pled incorrectly and get dismissed.
Aahh . . .
A citation to the woman who believes that it was OK to lock up the slants.
OK, that's a credible source.
Not.
You must be Canadian!
Only a Canadian would be polite enough to describe a baseless lawsuit brought to intimidate somone as "quite rude".
The difference is that Jobs' RDF works most of the time.
I am happy to report that the TiVo seebs hacked on is working just fine as a plain and ordinary DVR. It came up just fine after I reattached the hard disk cable that seebs had forgotten to reattach (although he did put all the old screws back in).
It's replaying today's stage of the Tour right now.
Infinium Labs had to engage in illegal junk-faxing for a pump 'n' dump stock scheme earlier this year.
If the company is that far down the tubes, there's not much hope of it ever producing a product.
I totally agree.
I've been messing around with GarageBand for a few months. While I can play bass and guitar, I have no idea how an actual song recording is constructed. I love having this so I can see how the various tracks are put together to make an entire song.
Why are these all strangely homoerotic?
If you didn't like the settlement, you could opt out. The members of a class in a class action always have the right to get out and either pursue their own lawsuits or not bring them
Of course, since you're just a troll, you don't care. I doubt you are even a member of the class.
The Eighth already ruled. The ban on junk faxes is constitutional, no matter what Judge Limbaugh says.
Or, he could use software from companies that don't require him to do this. In fact, it appears the raid did prompt Ernie Ball to audit its computers and use. Ernie Ball decided 1) it did not want to deal with companies that treated it badly; and 2) it did not need the products those companies sold.
Sounds simple to me. Why are you so stressed about it? Do companies have some sort of DUTY to use only Microsoft software?
Courts do not do these things. You only imagine they do because you are ignorant and stupid. THE COURT MUST HAVE JURISDICTION. The court cannot order anyone except the parties before it to do anything.
Again, you cite to a case without a clue. The parties to United States v. Microsoft (not DOJ) were, duh, the United States and Microsoft. The court had personal jurisdiction over Microsoft and could enter and enforce orders.
The United States District Court for the District of Utah DOES NOT have personal jurisdiction over anyone but IBM in this case.
The District Court does not have the POWER to enter the order you envision.
Stop and think for just a fucking second and you will see how ridiculous you are being. You don't even have to practice in federal courts to figure this out.
Who will be enjoined? Linus Torvalds? RMS? You? Me? Guess what, Braniac, the only parties to the litigation are SCO and IBM. The District Court does not have jurisdiction over anyone else.
The difference in Sun v. Microsoft was that Microsoft was a party and subject to the court's orders.
Yes, IA_Al. You, very obviously, are not.
Trip, trap . . . Trip, trap . . . .
Listen up, motherfucker, if you or one of your fucking customers calls any of my clients, I WILL SUE YOUR ASS. You personally will pay damages. You personally will have a judgment on your credit report. You peronally will be on the hook for violations of the TCPA.
Your bullshit constitutional arguments have been rejected by every federal appellate court to have considered them.
I sued four bullshit mortgage companies today. Each of them will pay. You will pay, too.
I'm watching, motherfucker.
I sued out five of them today. I'm working as fast as I can!
IA_AL. A malicious prosecution suit is a follow-up to the original suit. One of the elements of an MP claim is that the original plaintiff loses the original suit.
As my father always said, "Garbage in, gospel out."
SCO started this case in state court in Utah. SCO alleged both SCO and IBM were Delaware corporations, making them technically "residents" of the same state. Unfortunately, IBM is actually a New York corporation. Therefore, there is federal court jurisdiction to hear the case (residents of different states and amount of controversy in excess of $75,000.00).
SCO obviously wanted the case in state court. It very carefully pled no federal law claims such as copyright or patent. It pled only state law claims for unfair competetion, etc. The only reason to do this would be if SCO wanted this in state court.
IBM removed (that's the verb) the case to federal court - United States District Court for the District of Utah on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Not a thing SCO can do about it.
Why did SCO start the case in state court and why did IBM remove it? The state law claims of unfair competition, etc. are the same (the classic Erie decision still applies for all you budding 1Ls out there). The case will still physically remain in Utah.
IBM gets Rule 26(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under Rule 26(a), the parties must disclose to each other, without even a formal request, the most relevant documents to their case. The disclosure must be done relatively quickly. I doubt there is a similar automatic disclosure in the Utah rules. In state court, SCO might have been able to drag the discovery process out for at least a few months. It could keep its source code hidden for a while. Under the federal rules, it cannot do that. By removing the case to federal court, IBM undercut a big hunk of SCO strategy - namely FUD.
Obviously, the most relevant documents to this case are the source code listings SCO alleges IBM stole. These must be produced to IBM and produced quickly. There willl probably be a protective order preventing the rest of us from seeing them, but IBM gets to see them very soon (like maybe this month).
If there was no theft of code by IBM, expect a quick resolution of the case. If there was theft from Project Monterey in violation of the SCO-IBM agreement, expect a slugfest over intent and the the measure of damages.
In addition, by not even knowing the corporate home of its adversary, SCO comes in looking foolish. How hard would it be to determine IBM is a New York corporation, not a Delaware corporation? Not hard at all. Take a look at any of its SEC filings. It was a stupid mistake by SCO and although it does not logically follow that the rest of its allegations are undermined, it does decrease credibility of SCO and its attorneys.
The interesting question (at least for entertainment value) is who subpoenas RMS first to testify.