I came here to say that. There have been no criminal prosecutions for people who merely share copyrighted material on P2P services. Also, statutory damages aren't available in a criminal proceeding. A fine would have been, but that goes to the government, not the copyright holders. Here is what the United States said about restitution in this case:
The United States does not seek an award of restitution as part of the sentence, due to
difficulty determining the amount of actual loss suffered by any victims as a result of the
conduct. In a similar circumstance, the D.C. Court of Appeals recently found that a district court
abused its discretion in awarding restitution in a copyright infringement case where the evidence
was unclear on whether the defendant’s conduct “in fact thwarted actual sales of the victim’s
product.” United States v. Fair, 699 F.3d 508, 514 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The Court of Appeals noted
that “a defendant’s gain is not an appropriate measure of the victim’s actual loss in [Mandatory
Victims Restitution Act] calculations.” Id. at 513. Counsel for the United States reached out to
the Motion Picture Association of America, a trade group representing the major American
motion picture studios, to inform the group of the August 13 sentencing date and that there may
be a right to present a Victim Impact Statement if desired.
There would be no such limitations in a civil suit against him.
No book is ever "certified" by any court. Only statutes, regulations, and case law have any binding effect on courts. Some treatises are so authoritative that they are cited and considered highly persuasive. But there are no (or at least very few) case books that are treated this way. That's simply not what case books are for. They are for teaching in law school. They mostly consist of cases with some commentary and questions or problems for discussion.
The CA Labor Code involves only "an invention that the employee developed entirely on his or her own time without using the employer's equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information." The article linked in the post is talking about an invention-for-hire doctrine that only covers inventions made within the scope of employment. So, I'm not sure how situations like the one covered by CA law are relevant. The point remains, it is not necessary to create such a doctrine, because employers, as a general rule, require employees to sign an assignment agreement that covers inventions made at work using work equipment.
Do you have a citation to a case that has invalidated a patent assignment clause? California likes to invalidate terms of employment contracts, but that's a stretch.
Fair enough, you can often negotiate what exactly fits within the assignment agreement, but what I meant was that the general idea---what you make while you work for us is ours---is basically non-negotiable.
Every single R&D employer requires employees to assign all inventions. There is no way that is negotiable. Your pay/commission/whatever for having to do so may be, but there's no way around this requirement in today's employment market.
Yeah, the court was ruling on several motions at once. The defendants' motion for summary judgment (which argued the use was fair) was granted, and the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment was denied. That means the entire case is over at the trial court level. The standing part of the case was limited to a small subset of the issues.
Journals don't only publish papers reporting "positive results," whatever that may be. Even if your study comes out a way you didn't expect, if you did it right, you should still be able to get it published. There's something beyond publish or perish that is at work here.
It took a constitutional amendment to ban liquor, because the Supreme Court at the time did not interpret the Commerce Clause as expansively. After Wickard v. Fillmore, banning liquor or drugs would be perfectly within Congress' powers. The fact that Congress delegated some power to the DEA is perfectly in line with a number of precedents on agency powers.
Slashdot Mirror
The United States does not seek an award of restitution as part of the sentence, due to difficulty determining the amount of actual loss suffered by any victims as a result of the conduct. In a similar circumstance, the D.C. Court of Appeals recently found that a district court abused its discretion in awarding restitution in a copyright infringement case where the evidence was unclear on whether the defendant’s conduct “in fact thwarted actual sales of the victim’s product.” United States v. Fair, 699 F.3d 508, 514 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The Court of Appeals noted that “a defendant’s gain is not an appropriate measure of the victim’s actual loss in [Mandatory Victims Restitution Act] calculations.” Id. at 513. Counsel for the United States reached out to the Motion Picture Association of America, a trade group representing the major American motion picture studios, to inform the group of the August 13 sentencing date and that there may be a right to present a Victim Impact Statement if desired.
There would be no such limitations in a civil suit against him.
What perspective should a case book for use in US law schools use?
No book is ever "certified" by any court. Only statutes, regulations, and case law have any binding effect on courts. Some treatises are so authoritative that they are cited and considered highly persuasive. But there are no (or at least very few) case books that are treated this way. That's simply not what case books are for. They are for teaching in law school. They mostly consist of cases with some commentary and questions or problems for discussion.
HP has 8 current (i.e., not on clearance) laptops with Windows 7, most of which do not involve downgrade rights.
The CA Labor Code involves only "an invention that the employee developed entirely on his or her own time without using the employer's equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information." The article linked in the post is talking about an invention-for-hire doctrine that only covers inventions made within the scope of employment. So, I'm not sure how situations like the one covered by CA law are relevant. The point remains, it is not necessary to create such a doctrine, because employers, as a general rule, require employees to sign an assignment agreement that covers inventions made at work using work equipment.
Do you have a citation to a case that has invalidated a patent assignment clause? California likes to invalidate terms of employment contracts, but that's a stretch.
Fair enough, you can often negotiate what exactly fits within the assignment agreement, but what I meant was that the general idea---what you make while you work for us is ours---is basically non-negotiable.
Since this post is about U.S. patent law, I'm not quite sure how Europe is relevant.
Every single R&D employer requires employees to assign all inventions. There is no way that is negotiable. Your pay/commission/whatever for having to do so may be, but there's no way around this requirement in today's employment market.
Yeah, the court was ruling on several motions at once. The defendants' motion for summary judgment (which argued the use was fair) was granted, and the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment was denied. That means the entire case is over at the trial court level. The standing part of the case was limited to a small subset of the issues.
Journals don't only publish papers reporting "positive results," whatever that may be. Even if your study comes out a way you didn't expect, if you did it right, you should still be able to get it published. There's something beyond publish or perish that is at work here.
It took a constitutional amendment to ban liquor, because the Supreme Court at the time did not interpret the Commerce Clause as expansively. After Wickard v. Fillmore, banning liquor or drugs would be perfectly within Congress' powers. The fact that Congress delegated some power to the DEA is perfectly in line with a number of precedents on agency powers.
It may or may not be entrapment, but it definitely doesn't prevent actual terror attacks.