You're right, you do have to file an answer, I've obviously never been served, however... 5 seconds of research reveal that the summons / citation you are served will include... wait for this... instructions to file the "answer" you're referring to. So reading what you're served, assuming you can read, would give you enough direction to proceed.
I remain unimpressed, though you can try to fearmonger and obfuscate your industry all you want, the only reason for a lawyer I've found is to save time / not wanting to deal with something yourself.
There are those seemingly infinitely complex he said she said cases though (divorce), that process is so jacked up, a lawyer is required there, or many long nights of reading.
An appeal happens after you've lost I believe, and again you're getting sued, so they have to present evidence, with it being a civil case, the bar is lowered to they probably did it, which is a disadvantage, but there's still the whole person != IP argument, googling that court ruling and presenting it to the judge is well within our capabilities I believe.
The big reason I can think of for getting a lawyer is what's at stake and thats a problem w the justice system, a 150k fine is not just in any way shape or form.
If it was a matter of splitting 7500 among some people and settling and say paying 15k if you lose, I would go read that legislature in a heartbeat and argue my heart out, but staring down 150k and the chapter 7 would definitely make me think twice.
Also, just like there are people who do your job to different levels, the same applies to the legal system, a lawyer has been known to make things worse for some people historically.
In this case, I'm not sure how much a lawyer could help you. They have your IP, you can try arguing that IP != person, but you're pretty much caught red handed at this point making the settlement a lot more attractive. My point is a lawyer wouldn't make a difference here, so might as well self-represent, and... I would highly recommend settling here.
you're getting sued in this case, you don't need to file anything.
lawyers don't change the law for you to conveniently find you not guilty. You either did it and are trying to mitigate, or you didn't and are trying to prove you're innocent. You always ask the judge what you need to file if anything, and you can request witnesses, etc...
I believe that the legal system is a mess almost beyond recognition, but that works two ways, for you and against you and remember prosecutor's, lawyers, and judges are just people, they're not some god like beings who automatically know right from wrong, or even all of their state's statures. Here the whole person != IP would've been a very strong argument, if its a criminal case.
The media only portrays high level cases that almost always involve teams of lawyers, but the cases always go as expected, that's because the law is the law and representing yourself might even show the judge you're not a complete failure and gain you some leniency.
It's funny how the media narrows some people's POVs into a nice compact ignorant lump sum. Anyways, you don't need a lawyer to represent you, you can represent yourself if you so choose.
Actually intimidation was only part of it, the insignificant part, the lumping of defendants together was why the case got thrown out:
U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken last week dismissed the case, ruling the movie company had unfairly lumped the plaintiffs together in a "reverse class action suit" to save more than $200,000 in court costs, and possibly intimidate the plaintiffs into paying $7,500 for allegedly illegally viewing a $10 video.
I was actually wondering about the legality of such a move myself. However, the bigger picture is that appraently N. Carolina was able to pass such a law (lobbied by associations of interest no less), and now Tesla has to adapt to it. I think the article said they were planning on opening a show room or something.
The venue to channel the money exists, so is it really that surprising that companies use it?
Bribery here would be paying a politician to change their view on the internet sales tax, however that's not what's happening so the title is very leading... in a very wrong direction.
Did you read TFA? The farmer knew exactly what he was doing and was trying to get around the patent to save money... he got caught.
The bigger issue here is:
Monsanto has a policy to protect its investment in seed development that prohibits farmers from saving or reusing the seeds once the crop is grown. Farmers must buy new seeds every year.
That's a very harsh policy and they probably charge a premium for their seed, it must be tough to be a farmer nowadays.
It's a little deeper than you think in there... in the nature vs nurture debate our predisposition to insects falls into the nature part probably under instincts, so have fun overriding that one.
A "contest" is any game, puzzle, scheme, or plan which offers prospective participants the opportunity to receive or compete for gifts or prizes on the basis of skill or skill and chance, and which is conditioned wholly or partly on the payment of some value.
That's this. Also, I think a lot of these are in place for two reasons:
1. prevent solicitation 2. prevent scam contents, as contests are an effective form of advertising promotion, so if a company offers 1 mil and never pays it, but sells more of its product as a result... well thats what these laws are here for.
On a side note, my link reminded me of those old checks that I used to get in the mail that had a fake check saying i've already won... turns out those are illegal now, explains why I haven't seen one recently lol.
Ok, I'll give you that, I can directly think of an example of a coder that started later in life and still didn't completely grasp the QA / Layered release processes of good software development.
I still think, it can go either way though, the 40 year old can have relevant process experience that is almost directly applied to IT (R&D is a good example).
Slashdot Mirror
You're right, you do have to file an answer, I've obviously never been served, however... 5 seconds of research reveal that the summons / citation you are served will include... wait for this... instructions to file the "answer" you're referring to. So reading what you're served, assuming you can read, would give you enough direction to proceed.
I remain unimpressed, though you can try to fearmonger and obfuscate your industry all you want, the only reason for a lawyer I've found is to save time / not wanting to deal with something yourself.
There are those seemingly infinitely complex he said she said cases though (divorce), that process is so jacked up, a lawyer is required there, or many long nights of reading.
Here's my source, I'd imagine the process is similar in all 50 states: http://www.mass.gov/courts/admin/ji/rssect6.html , if it was for me I'd look for my states laws.
Oh, there's better ways, they just haven't been implemented yet.
Like a national center for vulnerabilities disclosure, or computer break in laws that actually make sense in the context of their subject.
with FAR less regulation.
And if you read the OP rather than just the link and acquired the context of the conversation, you might have even come off as not dumber than nails.
An appeal happens after you've lost I believe, and again you're getting sued, so they have to present evidence, with it being a civil case, the bar is lowered to they probably did it, which is a disadvantage, but there's still the whole person != IP argument, googling that court ruling and presenting it to the judge is well within our capabilities I believe.
The big reason I can think of for getting a lawyer is what's at stake and thats a problem w the justice system, a 150k fine is not just in any way shape or form.
If it was a matter of splitting 7500 among some people and settling and say paying 15k if you lose, I would go read that legislature in a heartbeat and argue my heart out, but staring down 150k and the chapter 7 would definitely make me think twice.
Also, just like there are people who do your job to different levels, the same applies to the legal system, a lawyer has been known to make things worse for some people historically.
In this case, I'm not sure how much a lawyer could help you. They have your IP, you can try arguing that IP != person, but you're pretty much caught red handed at this point making the settlement a lot more attractive. My point is a lawyer wouldn't make a difference here, so might as well self-represent, and... I would highly recommend settling here.
Written by lawyers for lawyers:
http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2004/02/09/focus9.html?page=all
The important thing to take away from this is that YOU need a lawyer if it ever comes down to it, being a sheeple and all.
you're getting sued in this case, you don't need to file anything.
lawyers don't change the law for you to conveniently find you not guilty. You either did it and are trying to mitigate, or you didn't and are trying to prove you're innocent. You always ask the judge what you need to file if anything, and you can request witnesses, etc...
I believe that the legal system is a mess almost beyond recognition, but that works two ways, for you and against you and remember prosecutor's, lawyers, and judges are just people, they're not some god like beings who automatically know right from wrong, or even all of their state's statures. Here the whole person != IP would've been a very strong argument, if its a criminal case.
The media only portrays high level cases that almost always involve teams of lawyers, but the cases always go as expected, that's because the law is the law and representing yourself might even show the judge you're not a complete failure and gain you some leniency.
have you ever heard of self representation?
It's funny how the media narrows some people's POVs into a nice compact ignorant lump sum. Anyways, you don't need a lawyer to represent you, you can represent yourself if you so choose.
Actually intimidation was only part of it, the insignificant part, the lumping of defendants together was why the case got thrown out:
U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken last week dismissed the case, ruling the movie company had unfairly lumped the plaintiffs together in a "reverse class action suit" to save more than $200,000 in court costs, and possibly intimidate the plaintiffs into paying $7,500 for allegedly illegally viewing a $10 video.
Notice the word possibly used.
troll much?
What suggestions? The German people were on vacation from 1939 to 1945.
I was actually wondering about the legality of such a move myself. However, the bigger picture is that appraently N. Carolina was able to pass such a law (lobbied by associations of interest no less), and now Tesla has to adapt to it. I think the article said they were planning on opening a show room or something.
Couldn't tesla sell the cars to 3rd party dealerships in N. Carolina?
Surely, they don't have that rigid of a business model as to not to.
The venue to channel the money exists, so is it really that surprising that companies use it?
Bribery here would be paying a politician to change their view on the internet sales tax, however that's not what's happening so the title is very leading... in a very wrong direction.
did you at least burn calories while reading it?
Has anybody ever actually read one of these and noticed a difference?
I'm a self-motivator so I can't speak either way, but just curious as a discussion topic.
The Voice is a singing competition, which interestingly enough can fall under
prizes on the basis of skill
from the first sentence, and then again under
tournament of skill
from the 2nd.
Gotta love US law.
Did you read TFA? The farmer knew exactly what he was doing and was trying to get around the patent to save money... he got caught.
The bigger issue here is:
Monsanto has a policy to protect its investment in seed development that prohibits farmers from saving or reusing the seeds once the crop is grown. Farmers must buy new seeds every year.
That's a very harsh policy and they probably charge a premium for their seed, it must be tough to be a farmer nowadays.
b-2 pilots approve.
It's a little deeper than you think in there... in the nature vs nurture debate our predisposition to insects falls into the nature part probably under instincts, so have fun overriding that one.
A "contest" is any game, puzzle, scheme, or plan which offers prospective participants the opportunity to receive or compete for gifts or prizes on the basis of skill or skill and chance, and which is conditioned wholly or partly on the payment of some value.
That's this. Also, I think a lot of these are in place for two reasons:
1. prevent solicitation
2. prevent scam contents, as contests are an effective form of advertising promotion, so if a company offers 1 mil and never pays it, but sells more of its product as a result... well thats what these laws are here for.
On a side note, my link reminded me of those old checks that I used to get in the mail that had a fake check saying i've already won... turns out those are illegal now, explains why I haven't seen one recently lol.
Ok, I'll give you that, I can directly think of an example of a coder that started later in life and still didn't completely grasp the QA / Layered release processes of good software development.
I still think, it can go either way though, the 40 year old can have relevant process experience that is almost directly applied to IT (R&D is a good example).
Holy shit!
There are laws: http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/legal_guides/u-3.shtml
Really, the only difference with Netflix is they end up being a competitor to ISPs who also provide Cable service. Well boo-fricking-hoo.
+100 Internets to you good sir.