sorry gary, just not so. i've been an enterprise customer for more than seven years. daily updates for enterprise customers started at least before 2004.
In this case, the State of California "wrongly" convicted Marsh, and it is the State of California that will pay the claim. If the State had denied the claim, his next step would have been to file suit against the State.
So in this case, at least a State government is accountable for its "uniquely governmental" action of prosecuting and convicting Marsh. FWIW.
Googling on the topic reveals a handful of news articles that state that the Federal government has been sued for wrongful convictions, within certain limitations, and in fact is required to compensate such "victims". But it also appears from those same news stories that "individual agents" of the federal government are protected from such claims and suits as long as they were not acting illegally.
You are an idiot too. I was not replying to your post. Go look at the reply history. In fact, I was -agreeing- with your post. Next time read the post and look at the history before opening your stupid mouth-- I was replying to rifter.
Well, since your original reply took me to task for referring to Lexis and West as sources, any reasonably intelligent person would make the assumption that you were replying directly to me.
On the other hand, you are merely being argumentative now, so it's probably useless to pursue conversation with you. Have a great day!
IANAL, but no employer has ever won a court case on these IP agreements, even when the software was developed for the company on company time and on company computers.
You are completely and utterly wrong. When you've reviewed the relevant caselaw (see Lexis or WestLaw), you're welcome to express an informed opinion. In the meantime, the critical factors will be to what extent Apple's time, computing resources or IP were used in the development of Netflix Fanatic.
Slashdot Mirror
sorry gary, just not so. i've been an enterprise customer for more than seven years. daily updates for enterprise customers started at least before 2004.
daily updates have been available to years. just not to certain classes of customer.
In this case, the State of California "wrongly" convicted Marsh, and it is the State of California that will pay the claim. If the State had denied the claim, his next step would have been to file suit against the State.
So in this case, at least a State government is accountable for its "uniquely governmental" action of prosecuting and convicting Marsh. FWIW.
Googling on the topic reveals a handful of news articles that state that the Federal government has been sued for wrongful convictions, within certain limitations, and in fact is required to compensate such "victims". But it also appears from those same news stories that "individual agents" of the federal government are protected from such claims and suits as long as they were not acting illegally.
http://homes.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.ht
Dell Dimension 4100 Desktop
In that case, please accept my apology.
You are an idiot too. I was not replying to your post. Go look at the reply history. In fact, I was -agreeing- with your post. Next time read the post and look at the history before opening your stupid mouth-- I was replying to rifter.
Well, since your original reply took me to task for referring to Lexis and West as sources, any reasonably intelligent person would make the assumption that you were replying directly to me.
On the other hand, you are merely being argumentative now, so it's probably useless to pursue conversation with you. Have a great day!
You sir, are an idiot.
Noncompete and nondisclosure/invention disclosure agreements are very different.
Hmm, I'm not the one arguing that this is a non-compete matter. Try again.
It's hard to cite case law if you can't get into Lexis or Westlaw and you aren't in a law library.
Law libraries are free (even for rifter). Your citation disproves nothing I've said. You must be confusing me with the parent poster.
So I just took one of the top links for "company employee intellectual property" from Google
So you're not an attorney, you merely play one on /. In grand tradition, of course.
The judge said in that case that an agreement like that would prevent a normal person from working in teh field and was in fact illegal
You're confused about the issue. This is not a non-compete matter. This is an ownership of intellectual property mater.
IANAL, but no employer has ever won a court case on these IP agreements, even when the software was developed for the company on company time and on company computers.
You are completely and utterly wrong. When you've reviewed the relevant caselaw (see Lexis or WestLaw), you're welcome to express an informed opinion. In the meantime, the critical factors will be to what extent Apple's time, computing resources or IP were used in the development of Netflix Fanatic.