Wrong. Kids have as much power as is given to them by the tenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And how do you know that they don't have the potential to implement a complex system after reading K&R? Sounds to me like someone has a bit of jealousy.
The ninth amendment says: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Somebody said earlier that adults control the government and the military, but by this amendment, they are not allowed to deny anyone their rights, even if they are public servants. And that's the key phrase: public servants.
I feel you're missing the point. In U.S. Supreme Court case 278 U.S. 245 it is made clear that "These facts bring the case within the terms of the statute, unless the words 'in any line of commerce' are to be given a narrower meaning than a literal reading of them conveys. The phrase is comprehensive and means that if
the forbidden effect or tendency is produced in one out of all the various lines of commerce, the words 'in any line of commerce' literally are satisfied. The contention is that the words must be confined to the particular line of
commerce in which the discriminator is engaged, and that they do not include a different line of commerce in which purchasers from the discriminator are engaged in competition with one another."
The "IBM monopoly case" was based on hardware distribution and the "Microsoft monopoly" is based on software distribution. The lines of commerce are similar but different. You can't apply the same criteria to both cases - each one has to be looked at with different goals in mind. No doubt that both companies have enjoyed great success in the public sector, but to say Microsoft is a monopoly because IBM is a monopoly is disingenuous and smacks of radical leftist thought.
Actually, in the case of Winston v. U S, 172 U.S. 303, there's ample evidence to suggest that these patents will affect users. An excerpt from the decision:
'If you reach the conclusion of guilt, 'Guilty as indicted,' it is your duty to return that verdict; and, unless you unanimously agree that the verdict should be qualified as the statute provides you may qualify it, there can be no qualification. It must be the unanimous conclusion of the jury. The question for you to ask yourselves is this: Are the circumstances in this case such, if you reach the conclusion that the defendant is guilty as indicted, as to require you, upon your oaths, to interfere with the penalty fixed by law?
The penalty for patent infringement is fixed by law, so usage of patented files is governed by these laws. It may very well affect the public's reception then of the Ogg Vorbis format. I wouldn't be too hasty in my judgment of what will transpire over the next couple of years.
I support neither Carnivore nor regular wiretaps. But allowing Carnivore will allow for easier evidence planting than a regular wiretap. IP address spoofing is incredibly easy. Thankfully, we have laws preventing such fraud. From U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 25, Section 514:
Whoever, with the intent to defraud - (1) draws, prints, processes, produces, publishes, or otherwise makes, or attempts or causes the same, within the United States; (2) passes, utters, presents, offers, brokers, issues, sells, or attempts or causes the same, or with like intent possesses, within the United States; or (3) utilizes interstate or foreign commerce, including the use of the mails or wire, radio, or other electronic communication, to transmit, transport, ship, move, transfer, or attempts or causes the same, to, from, or through the United States, any false or fictitious instrument, document, or other item appearing, representing, purporting, or contriving through scheme or artifice, to be an actual security or other financial instrument issued under the authority of the United States, a foreign government, a State or other political subdivision of the United States, or an organization, shall be guilty of a class B felony.
We all know the government allows wiretapping, but there is no precedent for internet wiretapping. Let's nip this one in the bud and write letters to Congress. Let them know you care about your rights as an American citizen.
Either way, using that data for unethical purposes is expressly prohibited by United States law.
U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 1033 says: Whoever, by threats or force or by any threatening letter or communication, corruptly influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors corruptly to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any proceeding involving the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce is pending before any insurance regulatory official or agency or any agent or examiner appointed by such official or agency to examine the affairs of a person engaged in the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce, shall be fined as provided in this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
I hardly consider this rabble rousing when our Constitutional rights are at stake. The changing of hands will result in a flurry of red tape at the end of which we can rest assured that the new owners of Toysmart will use their customer database for the corrupt purpose of selling this very personal information to telemarketers. However, customers can take recompense for damages incurred by Toysmart's policies.
From U.S. Code, Title 15 (Trade and Commerce), Chapter 8, Section 298: Suits by competitors, customers, or subsequent purchasers for injunctive relief; damages and costs Any competitor, customer, or competitor of a customer of any person in violation of section 294, 295, 296, or 297 of this title, or any subsequent purchaser of an article of merchandise which has been the subject of a violation of section 294, 295, 296, or 297 of this title, shall be entitled to injunctive relief restraining further violation of sections 294 to 300 of this title and may sue therefor in any district court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or has an agent, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover damages and the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee.
Let's face it, these 3 companies do go hand in hand.
So do Time Warner and AOL. The merge-happy economy of the past few years needs to be checked out, lest we lose our ability to choose whom we buy products from.
From Schwabacher v. U.S., 334 U.S. 182: The appellants contend that their share in the merged company is to be measured by, or their remedies [ 334 U.S. 182 , 190] as dissenters are to be found in, state law, but that the federal agency is bound to determine and apply that law. The Commission on the other hand refuses either finally to foreclose or to allow these claims. It apparently leaves it open to the state courts, or to the parties by negotiation, to add to the surviving carrier's capital obligations which the Commission has found to be just and reasonable, others founded only in state law and as to which it has made no such findings.
The onus is on both the state and federal governments and the FTC to take a careful look at the slew of mergers currently going on. Nothing less than our precious capitalism is at stake.
Even if this wasn't a binding contract, it is most certainly unethical. It is my personal belief that no corporate entity should be able to spy on their employees by sifting through their e-mail. It violates all sorts of rights granted to us by the Bill of Rights.
The U.S. Code Title 47, Chapter 2, Section 33 also notes: From the decrees and judgments of the district courts in actions and suits arising under this chapter appeals shall be allowed as provided by law in other cases. Criminal actions and proceedings for a violation of the provisions of this chapter shall be commenced and prosecuted in the district court for the district within which the offense was committed, and when not committed within any judicial district, then in the district court for the district within which the offender may be found; and suits of a civil nature may be commenced in the district court for any district within which the defendant may be found and shall be served with process. I think that a closer look at this case may lead to a chance to take legal action against the employer.
Perhaps, but if you look at the U.S. Code, Title 47, Chapter 1, Section 12, it reads: "it is made the duty of the Attorney General of the United States, by proper proceedings, to prevent any unlawful interference with the rights and equities of the United States under all acts of Congress relating to such." Title 47 serves as a vital part of the legislation passed regarding interstate communication.
equal advantages and facilities in the interchange of business, as herein provided for, without any discrimination whatever for or adverse to the telegraph line of any or either of said connecting companies, or shall refuse to abide by or perform and carry out within a reasonable time the order or orders of the Federal Communications Commission, shall in every such case of refusal or failure be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall in every such case be fined in a sum of not exceeding $1,000, and may be imprisoned not less than six months; and in every such case of refusal or failure the party aggrieved may not only cause the officer or agent guilty thereof to be prosecuted under the provisions of this section, but may also bring an action for the damages sustained thereby against the company whose officer or agent may be guilty thereof, in the district court of the United States
Maybe the FBI will think twice before proceeding with their actions.
Did you eat paint chips when you were a kid? Some businesses do need to be regulated in order to protect the interests of the people at large. Granted, we can't control all aspects of the economy, but I hardly think blaming the courts for business' mistakes is in order. Comparing a major corporation to a little kid is a little off, too. The kid can't bribe his parents to get them to shut up - most kids I know aren't financially independent.
The last case quotes Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18: "No corporation engaged in commerce shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock or other share capital and no corporation subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission shall acquire the whole or any part of the assets of another corporation engaged also in commerce, where in any line of commerce in any section of the country, the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly."
The Clayton Act was created for a reason - to protect the American people from the rapacious greed of monolithic corporations. Perhaps your mental image would be better supplanted with an incubus whose parents don't allow him to do anything, and he ends up devouring their souls.
The UCITA is a worthless, unconstitutional piece of legislation. I recommend people look at the illegal search and seizure clause in the 4th Amendment and then look at the UCITA's provision for businesses to revoke ownership rights to software.
Not only that, it stands in the face of Chapter 2 of the U.S. Code, Title 15, Chapter 2 which deals with the Federal Trade Commission and unfair business practices.
I quote from Section 45: Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful. Surely, the software lobbies pushing UCITA through various state legislatures without public debate is somewhere on the order of deceptive. From the same section: No order of the Commission or judgement of court to enforce the same shall in anywise relieve or absolve any person, partnership, or corporation from any liability. What then is this blanket protection of commercial software houses which allows these companies to sell products that do not function? I have recently found out that a major university purchased a particular room scheduling program. However, this program does not function at all in any capacity related to room scheduling. On top of this, the programmers have no sense of security measures - the program is a steaming pile of useless electrons. Under UCITA, the university that made the purchase can't sue the software house for not delivering a program that should work within a reasonable frame of functionality. And that, my friend, is false advertising ( See Section 55 ).
Software companies should not be allowed to masquerade under false pretenses. From Section 69e: the Commission may require whenever such name is used in setting forth the information required by this subchapter, such qualifying statements as it may deem necessary to prevent confusion or deception. Products should function as they are described, and if not, then the description should be changed to match the functionality. The UCITA destroys the liability a company has to produce a product that works within certain specifications by covering companies with an anti-litigious umbrella.
I would recommend that the respective legislatures and the FTC remember who they are beholden to, and to remember that this country was not founded to support a plutocracy. There are plenty of other dictatorships the world throughout to handle such a form of government.
Except that this digital signature business will not put government in the hands of the people. According to the 24th Amendment, The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
For people without access to computers and the internet, this is the equivalent of a poll tax as it hinders a "non-connected" person's access to these online petitions. See my earlier post on equality.
The Nazis also could have cared less about disabilities and social equality. Slave traders could have cared less about disabilities and social equality. I bring to your attention a trifling document called the Declaration of Independence.
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Elitist regimes and dynasties come and go with the winds, but the United States government has stayed intact since its inception. This perceived need for social equality seems to have created a lasting governmental structure.
Or perhaps glance at the French Constitution which notes in its first clause: "Frenchmen are equal before the law, whatever may be their titles and rank."
If you are willing to take a look at these, I might be willing to look at Schopenhauer.
With each passing post of this nature, the doomsayers and rebels and freedom fighters jump out with "How can anyone POSSIBLY regulate ME?" It can be done and will be done. Court decisions are overturned. Laws are changed (that's why we in the US still have a Congress).
Perhaps you are forgetting a slew of amendments written to protect us from this regulation.
The 4th AmendmentThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No company has the right to police our personal hard drives, and the government can only do so when there is probable cause for some specific crime and when a search warrant has been issued.
The 6th AmendmentIn all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
This means that in the event that the government does get a search warrant for the materials on someone's hard drive, that someone has a right to know for what reason his hard drive has been seized and who his accusers are. Never mind these bullshit NetPD lists.
Now, the record companies may point out this phrase from the 5th Amendment:nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. To that, I counter with the 9th Amendment:The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Ergo, the loss of profits [read:pennies] does not justify the clampdown on file sharing that the RIAA would have you believe is utterly justified.
Something illegal is currently occurring somewhere, it is only a matter of time before the government does something (either regulate by denying service or by taking a substantial take on the profits)
Remember, the 12th Amendment allows the people to elect their Senators. The power to vote is a power we would do well to exercise.
When a development after this Court grants certiorari or notes probable jurisdiction could have the effect of depriving the Court of jurisdiction due to the absence of a continuing case or controversy, that development should be called to the attention of the Court without delay. See this Court's Rules 34.1(g) (petitioner's statement of the case shall contain all that is material to the issues); 34.2 (respondent's brief may correct any omission from petitioner's statement); and 35.5 (parties may file supplemental briefs after briefs on the merits to point out intervening matters not contained in the merits briefs).
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as moot.
I would say the GPL stands a good chance of holding up in court.
An excerpt from the former: In cases like this, where damages are claimed under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (45 USCA 51-59), defense of the assumption of the risk is permissible and where the undisputed evidence clearly shows such assumption the trial judge should direct a verdict for the defendant. Moreover, in proceedings under that act, wherever brought, the rights and obligations of the parties depend upon it [284 U.S. 44, 47] and applicable principles of common law as interpreted and applied in the federal courts. Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Horton, 233 U.S. 492, 508 , 34 S. Ct. 625, L. R. A. 1915C, 1, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 475; Chesapeake & Ohio R. R. v. De Atley, 241 U.S. 310 , 36 S. Ct. 564; Boldt v. Pennsylvania R. R., 245 U.S. 441, 445 , 38 S. Ct. 139; New Orleans & N. E. R. R. v. Harris, 247 U.S. 367, 371 , 38 S. Ct. 535; Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. v. Coogan, 271 U.S. 472, 474 , 46 S. Ct. 564
Napster is not to blame. The RIAA is to blame for this violation of our 17th Amendment rights. Just because the RIAA has vast reserves of cash at its hand to sway our representatives doesn't make its rape of the Constitution right.
MS is evil (except for their successful lobbying to get copyright on software), but big business is not.
How is Big Business not evil? Why do you think we had to create the Sherman Anti-trust Act? What about the court decision in Carnegie Steel Co. v. U.S. (Case # 240 U.S. 156) in 1916? Or 279 U.S. 263 (1929), Sinclair v. U.S.?
Take a long hard look, and maybe you'll change your mind about big business.
Had you paid attention in history class, you would know that you are protected from such intrusion on your rights by the Sedition Act of 1798.
Section 1: Be it enacted . .., That if any persons shall unlawfully combine or conspire together, with intent to oppose any measure or measures of the government of the United States, which are or shall be directed by proper authority, or to impede the operation of any law of the United States, or to intimidate or prevent any person holding a place or office in or under the government of the United States, from undertaking, performing or executing his trust or duty; and if any person or persons, with intent as aforesaid, shall counsel, advise or attempt to procure any insurrection, riot. unlawful assembly, or combination, whether such conspiracy, threatening, counsel, advice, or attempt shall have the proposed effect or not, he or they shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and on conviction, before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, and by imprisonment during a term not less than six months nor exceeding five years; and further, at the discretion of the court may be holden to find sureties for his good behaviour in such sum, and for such time, as the said court may direct.
Of course, if you're not an American citizen, this post does not apply to you.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution says, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"
Perhaps our legislature isn't living up to its constitutional demands, because this action by RAMBUS is most definitely not in the general welfare of the United States.
Maybe if the various branches of government worked together in accordance with the Northwest Ordinance, we wouldn't have this problem:
The governor and judges, or a majority of them, shall adopt and publish in the district such laws of the original States, criminal and civil, as may be necessary and best suited to the circumstances of the district, and report them to Congress from time to time: which laws shall be in force in the district until the organization of the General Assembly therein, unless disapproved of by Congress; but afterwards the Legislature shall have authority to alter them as they shall think fit.
It takes all branches, people. Don't dump it all on the DOJ!
As we are discovering, the lines of responsibility in this crazy, mixed-up, hyperlinked world are blurry indeed.
I don't think so. The lines of responsibility are clear-cut. These actions by DoubleClick and all these other privacy invading companies are a violation of my 23rd Amendment rights.
Maybe this sort of thing would fly in the 60's, but it's high time we started interpreting the Constitution like it was meant to be interpreted.
These so-called issues are clarified by Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
I would like, if I may, to bring to the forefront a historical document which I feel has particular bearing on this matter.
Most especially each party shall have a right to carry their own produce, manufactures & merchandise, in their own or any other vessels to any parts of the dominions of the other, where it shall be lawful for all the subjects or citizens of that other, freely to purchase them; and thence to take the produce, Manufactures & merchandise of the other, which all the said citizens of subjects shall in like manner be free to sell them, paying in both cases such duties, charges & fees only, as are or shall be paid by the most favored nation. Nevertheless the king of Prussia and the United States, & each of them, reserve to themselves the right where any nation restrains the transportation of merchandise to the vessels of the country of which it is the growth or manufacture, to establish against such nation retaliating regulations; and also the right to prohibit, in their respective countries, the importation & exportation of all merchandise whatsoever, when reasons of state shall require it. In this case the subjects or citizens of either of the contracting parties shall not import nor export the merchandise prohibited by the other; but if one of the contracting parties permits any other nation to import or export the same merchandise, the citizens or subjects of the other shall immediately enjoy the same liberty.
This is Article 4 of the Treaty of Amity and Commerce of 1785. This is not revisionist history - it is directly quoted from historical documents. Make of it what you will. Seeing as the U.S. government played a rather conspicuous role in the development of the internet, I would encourage everyone to take a look at this treaty, which bears information that is relevant to current internet law.
We don't. The framework is all there in the Constitution and its respective amendments.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The above text forms the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, a purpose statement which indicates that the following legal document contains instructions on how to make a nation fit to live in.
The 9th article of the Bill of Rights notes: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." COPA is a fine example of a violation of this article.
Not only that, but in 267 U.S. 276 (1925), Fulton National Bank of Atlanta v. Hozier, the presiding judge remarked: "The general rule is that, when a federal court has properly acquired jurisdiction over a cause, it may entertain, by intervention, dependent or ancillary controversies; but no controversy can be regarded as dependent or ancillary unless it has direct relation to property or assets actually or constructively drawn into the court's possession or control by the principal suit."
Why do we put up with this sort of thing? Because we don't vote. Exercise your constitutional right and vote in the upcoming elections!
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong. Kids have as much power as is given to them by the tenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And how do you know that they don't have the potential to implement a complex system after reading K&R? Sounds to me like someone has a bit of jealousy.
The ninth amendment says: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Somebody said earlier that adults control the government and the military, but by this amendment, they are not allowed to deny anyone their rights, even if they are public servants. And that's the key phrase: public servants.
The "IBM monopoly case" was based on hardware distribution and the "Microsoft monopoly" is based on software distribution. The lines of commerce are similar but different. You can't apply the same criteria to both cases - each one has to be looked at with different goals in mind. No doubt that both companies have enjoyed great success in the public sector, but to say Microsoft is a monopoly because IBM is a monopoly is disingenuous and smacks of radical leftist thought.
Actually, in the case of Winston v. U S, 172 U.S. 303, there's ample evidence to suggest that these patents will affect users. An excerpt from the decision:
'If you reach the conclusion of guilt, 'Guilty as indicted,' it is your duty to return that verdict; and, unless you unanimously agree that the verdict should be qualified as the statute provides you may qualify it, there can be no qualification. It must be the unanimous conclusion of the jury. The question for you to ask yourselves is this: Are the circumstances in this case such, if you reach the conclusion that the defendant is guilty as indicted, as to require you, upon your oaths, to interfere with the penalty fixed by law?
The penalty for patent infringement is fixed by law, so usage of patented files is governed by these laws. It may very well affect the public's reception then of the Ogg Vorbis format. I wouldn't be too hasty in my judgment of what will transpire over the next couple of years.
I support neither Carnivore nor regular wiretaps. But allowing Carnivore will allow for easier evidence planting than a regular wiretap. IP address spoofing is incredibly easy. Thankfully, we have laws preventing such fraud. From U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 25, Section 514:
Whoever, with the intent to defraud - (1) draws, prints, processes, produces, publishes, or otherwise makes, or attempts or causes the same, within the United States; (2) passes, utters, presents, offers, brokers, issues, sells, or attempts or causes the same, or with like intent possesses, within the United States; or (3) utilizes interstate or foreign commerce, including the use of the mails or wire, radio, or other electronic communication, to transmit, transport, ship, move, transfer, or attempts or causes the same, to, from, or through the United States, any false or fictitious instrument, document, or other item appearing, representing, purporting, or contriving through scheme or artifice, to be an actual security or other financial instrument issued under the authority of the United States, a foreign government, a State or other political subdivision of the United States, or an organization, shall be guilty of a class B felony.
We all know the government allows wiretapping, but there is no precedent for internet wiretapping. Let's nip this one in the bud and write letters to Congress. Let them know you care about your rights as an American citizen.
Either way, using that data for unethical purposes is expressly prohibited by United States law.
U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 1033 says: Whoever, by threats or force or by any threatening letter or communication, corruptly influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors corruptly to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any proceeding involving the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce is pending before any insurance regulatory official or agency or any agent or examiner appointed by such official or agency to examine the affairs of a person engaged in the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce, shall be fined as provided in this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
I hardly consider this rabble rousing when our Constitutional rights are at stake. The changing of hands will result in a flurry of red tape at the end of which we can rest assured that the new owners of Toysmart will use their customer database for the corrupt purpose of selling this very personal information to telemarketers. However, customers can take recompense for damages incurred by Toysmart's policies.
From U.S. Code, Title 15 (Trade and Commerce), Chapter 8, Section 298: Suits by competitors, customers, or subsequent purchasers for injunctive relief; damages and costs Any competitor, customer, or competitor of a customer of any person in violation of section 294, 295, 296, or 297 of this title, or any subsequent purchaser of an article of merchandise which has been the subject of a violation of section 294, 295, 296, or 297 of this title, shall be entitled to injunctive relief restraining further violation of sections 294 to 300 of this title and may sue therefor in any district court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or has an agent, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover damages and the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee.
Let's face it, these 3 companies do go hand in hand.
So do Time Warner and AOL. The merge-happy economy of the past few years needs to be checked out, lest we lose our ability to choose whom we buy products from.
From Schwabacher v. U.S., 334 U.S. 182: The appellants contend that their share in the merged company is to be measured by, or their remedies [ 334 U.S. 182 , 190] as dissenters are to be found in, state law, but that the federal agency is bound to determine and apply that law. The Commission on the other hand refuses either finally to foreclose or to allow these claims. It apparently leaves it open to the state courts, or to the parties by negotiation, to add to the surviving carrier's capital obligations which the Commission has found to be just and reasonable, others founded only in state law and as to which it has made no such findings.
The onus is on both the state and federal governments and the FTC to take a careful look at the slew of mergers currently going on. Nothing less than our precious capitalism is at stake.
Even if this wasn't a binding contract, it is most certainly unethical. It is my personal belief that no corporate entity should be able to spy on their employees by sifting through their e-mail. It violates all sorts of rights granted to us by the Bill of Rights.
Furthermore, the government has passed laws regarding the Interception of Digital and Other Communications
The U.S. Code Title 47, Chapter 2, Section 33 also notes: From the decrees and judgments of the district courts in actions and suits arising under this chapter appeals shall be allowed as provided by law in other cases. Criminal actions and proceedings for a violation of the provisions of this chapter shall be commenced and prosecuted in the district court for the district within which the offense was committed, and when not committed within any judicial district, then in the district court for the district within which the offender may be found; and suits of a civil nature may be commenced in the district court for any district within which the defendant may be found and shall be served with process. I think that a closer look at this case may lead to a chance to take legal action against the employer.
Perhaps, but if you look at the U.S. Code, Title 47, Chapter 1, Section 12, it reads: "it is made the duty of the Attorney General of the United States, by proper proceedings, to prevent any unlawful interference with the rights and equities of the United States under all acts of Congress relating to such." Title 47 serves as a vital part of the legislation passed regarding interstate communication.
Furthermore, take a look at Section 13:
equal advantages and facilities in the interchange of business, as herein provided for, without any discrimination whatever for or adverse to the telegraph line of any or either of said connecting companies, or shall refuse to abide by or perform and carry out within a reasonable time the order or orders of the Federal Communications Commission, shall in every such case of refusal or failure be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall in every such case be fined in a sum of not exceeding $1,000, and may be imprisoned not less than six months; and in every such case of refusal or failure the party aggrieved may not only cause the officer or agent guilty thereof to be prosecuted under the provisions of this section, but may also bring an action for the damages sustained thereby against the company whose officer or agent may be guilty thereof, in the district court of the United States
Maybe the FBI will think twice before proceeding with their actions.
Did you eat paint chips when you were a kid? Some businesses do need to be regulated in order to protect the interests of the people at large. Granted, we can't control all aspects of the economy, but I hardly think blaming the courts for business' mistakes is in order. Comparing a major corporation to a little kid is a little off, too. The kid can't bribe his parents to get them to shut up - most kids I know aren't financially independent.
Take a look at these Supreme Court Cases:
Helvering v. Watts 296 U.S. 387
Procter & Gamble v. U.S. 225 U.S. 387
U.S. v. Amer. Bldg. Maint. Industries 422 U.S. 271
The last case quotes Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18: "No corporation engaged in commerce shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock or other share capital and no corporation subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission shall acquire the whole or any part of the assets of another corporation engaged also in commerce, where in any line of commerce in any section of the country, the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly."
The Clayton Act was created for a reason - to protect the American people from the rapacious greed of monolithic corporations. Perhaps your mental image would be better supplanted with an incubus whose parents don't allow him to do anything, and he ends up devouring their souls.
By the power vested in me by the United States Constitution, I declare you a raging idiot.
The Captain
The UCITA is a worthless, unconstitutional piece of legislation. I recommend people look at the illegal search and seizure clause in the 4th Amendment and then look at the UCITA's provision for businesses to revoke ownership rights to software.
Not only that, it stands in the face of Chapter 2 of the U.S. Code, Title 15, Chapter 2 which deals with the Federal Trade Commission and unfair business practices.
I quote from Section 45: Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful. Surely, the software lobbies pushing UCITA through various state legislatures without public debate is somewhere on the order of deceptive. From the same section: No order of the Commission or judgement of court to enforce the same shall in anywise relieve or absolve any person, partnership, or corporation from any liability. What then is this blanket protection of commercial software houses which allows these companies to sell products that do not function? I have recently found out that a major university purchased a particular room scheduling program. However, this program does not function at all in any capacity related to room scheduling. On top of this, the programmers have no sense of security measures - the program is a steaming pile of useless electrons. Under UCITA, the university that made the purchase can't sue the software house for not delivering a program that should work within a reasonable frame of functionality. And that, my friend, is false advertising ( See Section 55 ).
Software companies should not be allowed to masquerade under false pretenses. From Section 69e: the Commission may require whenever such name is used in setting forth the information required by this subchapter, such qualifying statements as it may deem necessary to prevent confusion or deception. Products should function as they are described, and if not, then the description should be changed to match the functionality. The UCITA destroys the liability a company has to produce a product that works within certain specifications by covering companies with an anti-litigious umbrella.
I would recommend that the respective legislatures and the FTC remember who they are beholden to, and to remember that this country was not founded to support a plutocracy. There are plenty of other dictatorships the world throughout to handle such a form of government.
Except that this digital signature business will not put government in the hands of the people. According to the 24th Amendment, The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
For people without access to computers and the internet, this is the equivalent of a poll tax as it hinders a "non-connected" person's access to these online petitions. See my earlier post on equality.
The Nazis also could have cared less about disabilities and social equality. Slave traders could have cared less about disabilities and social equality. I bring to your attention a trifling document called the Declaration of Independence.
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.Elitist regimes and dynasties come and go with the winds, but the United States government has stayed intact since its inception. This perceived need for social equality seems to have created a lasting governmental structure.
If that isn't enough, take a look at the Hungarian Declaration of Independence which looks like it was closely based on the U.S. Declaration.
Or perhaps glance at the French Constitution which notes in its first clause: "Frenchmen are equal before the law, whatever may be their titles and rank."
If you are willing to take a look at these, I might be willing to look at Schopenhauer.
With each passing post of this nature, the doomsayers and rebels and freedom fighters jump out with "How can anyone POSSIBLY regulate ME?" It can be done and will be done. Court decisions are overturned. Laws are changed (that's why we in the US still have a Congress).
Perhaps you are forgetting a slew of amendments written to protect us from this regulation.
The 4th Amendment The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No company has the right to police our personal hard drives, and the government can only do so when there is probable cause for some specific crime and when a search warrant has been issued.
The 6th Amendment In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
This means that in the event that the government does get a search warrant for the materials on someone's hard drive, that someone has a right to know for what reason his hard drive has been seized and who his accusers are. Never mind these bullshit NetPD lists.
Now, the record companies may point out this phrase from the 5th Amendment:nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. To that, I counter with the 9th Amendment:The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Ergo, the loss of profits [read:pennies] does not justify the clampdown on file sharing that the RIAA would have you believe is utterly justified.
Something illegal is currently occurring somewhere, it is only a matter of time before the government does something (either regulate by denying service or by taking a substantial take on the profits)
Remember, the 12th Amendment allows the people to elect their Senators. The power to vote is a power we would do well to exercise.
Some legal precedent for ya:
Mellon v. Delaware L & WR Co.
Tiverton Bd. of License Comm'rs v. Pastore
From the latter:
When a development after this Court grants certiorari or notes probable jurisdiction could have the effect of depriving the Court of jurisdiction due to the absence of a continuing case or controversy, that development should be called to the attention of the Court without delay. See this Court's Rules 34.1(g) (petitioner's statement of the case shall contain all that is material to the issues); 34.2 (respondent's brief may correct any omission from petitioner's statement); and 35.5 (parties may file supplemental briefs after briefs on the merits to point out intervening matters not contained in the merits briefs).
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as moot.
I would say the GPL stands a good chance of holding up in court.
You might find these links interesting and enlightening:
Chesapeake and O.RY. Co. v. Kuhn
Cadwalader v. Wanamaker
An excerpt from the former:
In cases like this, where damages are claimed under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (45 USCA 51-59), defense of the assumption of the risk is permissible and where the undisputed evidence clearly shows such assumption the trial judge should direct a verdict for the defendant. Moreover, in proceedings under that act, wherever brought, the rights and obligations of the parties depend upon it [284 U.S. 44, 47] and applicable principles of common law as interpreted and applied in the federal courts. Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Horton, 233 U.S. 492, 508 , 34 S. Ct. 625, L. R. A. 1915C, 1, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 475; Chesapeake & Ohio R. R. v. De Atley, 241 U.S. 310 , 36 S. Ct. 564; Boldt v. Pennsylvania R. R., 245 U.S. 441, 445 , 38 S. Ct. 139; New Orleans & N. E. R. R. v. Harris, 247 U.S. 367, 371 , 38 S. Ct. 535; Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. v. Coogan, 271 U.S. 472, 474 , 46 S. Ct. 564
Napster is not to blame. The RIAA is to blame for this violation of our 17th Amendment rights. Just because the RIAA has vast reserves of cash at its hand to sway our representatives doesn't make its rape of the Constitution right.
MS is evil (except for their successful lobbying to get copyright on software), but big business is not.
How is Big Business not evil? Why do you think we had to create the Sherman Anti-trust Act? What about the court decision in Carnegie Steel Co. v. U.S. (Case # 240 U.S. 156) in 1916? Or 279 U.S. 263 (1929), Sinclair v. U.S.?
Take a long hard look, and maybe you'll change your mind about big business.
Had you paid attention in history class, you would know that you are protected from such intrusion on your rights by the Sedition Act of 1798.
Section 1: Be it enacted . . ., That if any persons shall unlawfully combine or conspire together, with intent to oppose any measure or measures of the government of the United States, which are or shall be directed by proper authority, or to impede the operation of any law of the United States, or to intimidate or prevent any person holding a place or office in or under the government of the United States, from undertaking, performing or executing his trust or duty; and if any person or persons, with intent as aforesaid, shall counsel, advise or attempt to procure any insurrection, riot. unlawful assembly, or combination, whether such conspiracy, threatening, counsel, advice, or attempt shall have the proposed effect or not, he or they shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and on conviction, before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, and by imprisonment during a term not less than six months nor exceeding five years; and further, at the discretion of the court may be holden to find sureties for his good behaviour in such sum, and for such time, as the said court may direct.
Of course, if you're not an American citizen, this post does not apply to you.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution says, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"
Perhaps our legislature isn't living up to its constitutional demands, because this action by RAMBUS is most definitely not in the general welfare of the United States.
Congress, take heed!
Maybe if the various branches of government worked together in accordance with the Northwest Ordinance, we wouldn't have this problem:
The governor and judges, or a majority of them, shall adopt and publish in the district such laws of the original States, criminal and civil, as may be necessary and best suited to the circumstances of the district, and report them to Congress from time to time: which laws shall be in force in the district until the organization of the General Assembly therein, unless disapproved of by Congress; but afterwards the Legislature shall have authority to alter them as they shall think fit.
It takes all branches, people. Don't dump it all on the DOJ!
As we are discovering, the lines of responsibility in this crazy, mixed-up, hyperlinked world are blurry indeed.
I don't think so. The lines of responsibility are clear-cut. These actions by DoubleClick and all these other privacy invading companies are a violation of my 23rd Amendment rights.
Maybe this sort of thing would fly in the 60's, but it's high time we started interpreting the Constitution like it was meant to be interpreted.
These so-called issues are clarified by Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
I would like, if I may, to bring to the forefront a historical document which I feel has particular bearing on this matter.
Most especially each party shall have a right to carry their own produce, manufactures & merchandise, in their own or any other vessels to any parts of the dominions of the other, where it shall be lawful for all the subjects or citizens of that other, freely to purchase them; and thence to take the produce, Manufactures & merchandise of the other, which all the said citizens of subjects shall in like manner be free to sell them, paying in both cases such duties, charges & fees only, as are or shall be paid by the most favored nation. Nevertheless the king of Prussia and the United States, & each of them, reserve to themselves the right where any nation restrains the transportation of merchandise to the vessels of the country of which it is the growth or manufacture, to establish against such nation retaliating regulations; and also the right to prohibit, in their respective countries, the importation & exportation of all merchandise whatsoever, when reasons of state shall require it. In this case the subjects or citizens of either of the contracting parties shall not import nor export the merchandise prohibited by the other; but if one of the contracting parties permits any other nation to import or export the same merchandise, the citizens or subjects of the other shall immediately enjoy the same liberty.
This is Article 4 of the Treaty of Amity and Commerce of 1785. This is not revisionist history - it is directly quoted from historical documents. Make of it what you will. Seeing as the U.S. government played a rather conspicuous role in the development of the internet, I would encourage everyone to take a look at this treaty, which bears information that is relevant to current internet law.
We don't. The framework is all there in the Constitution and its respective amendments.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The above text forms the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, a purpose statement which indicates that the following legal document contains instructions on how to make a nation fit to live in.
The 9th article of the Bill of Rights notes: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." COPA is a fine example of a violation of this article.
Not only that, but in 267 U.S. 276 (1925), Fulton National Bank of Atlanta v. Hozier, the presiding judge remarked: "The general rule is that, when a federal court has properly acquired jurisdiction over a cause, it may entertain, by intervention, dependent or ancillary controversies; but no controversy can be regarded as dependent or ancillary unless it has direct relation to property or assets actually or constructively drawn into the court's possession or control by the principal suit."
Why do we put up with this sort of thing? Because we don't vote. Exercise your constitutional right and vote in the upcoming elections!