You can't appeal the same judgment more than once, because -- generally speaking -- if you don't raise an issue on the first appeal, you waive it. Your cynicism is unwarranted.
Take a closer look at that list. More than half of those cases present only issues arising under federal laws enacted by Congress -- the Federal Arbitration Act, the Voting Rights Act, federal environmental laws, the acts governing certain federal agencies, the tax code.
And even in cases where there are both kinds of issues -- constitutional and nonconstitutional -- the Court will try to decide the case by resolving only the nonconstitutional question if it can.
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 31 provides for 40 days for service of the initial brief, 30 days for service of the responsive brief, and 14 for service of a reply brief, for a total of something like three months. The story suggests Microsoft is looking for 60, 60, 30, or an additional two months in total, about half of which would go to the government.
That provision of the Constitution protects the rights of defendants in criminal cases. It does not grant any rights to the government or state attorneys general as plaintiffs in a civil case.
This is wrong in several respects. In particular, while the Supreme Court has final say on constitutional issues, a substantial part of its docket consists of cases presenting nonconstitutional issues arising under federal law (the Internal Revenue Code, the federal securities and commodities laws, civil rights laws, antitrust laws, etc., etc.). The Court does not treat these cases as presumptively less important than cases involving constitutional issues. I seriously doubt that the Supreme Court bumped the Microsoft antitrust case in favor of the ten-thousandth criminal procedure case it will hear because the latter involves the Constitution and is therefore more important.
Also, there are no "multiple levels" of courts between the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the U.S. Supreme Court, unless "multiple" is permitted to mean "one." After the District Court -- Jackson's court -- there is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Then there is the U.S. Supreme Court. The end.
A better question is: Other than the DMCA -- which has a narrow though not insignificant scope -- what makes you think that reverse engineering is not legally protected in the States?
Connectix/ Bleem can probably sue for damages caused by the suit, and most likely get their attorneys fee back.
No. Under American law, absent a special statutory provision or really, really abusive conduct (e.g., suing someone for something which is absolutely and completely fictional) a defendant can't sue to recover attorneys' fees from a losing plaintiff.
I understand that the encrypted:CueCat output includes device identification information unique to each particular CC, so two seemingly identical CCs will produce different output. I think you can cut out that portion of the encrypted string, but then you're diddling with the output and you're back to square one.
How do you think Rehnquist's son got the case fighting _for_ Microsoft in the first place? Because of his great background and case work?
Well, if you check his bio, he's a litigation partner in one of Boston's largest law firms who served for five years as a federal prosecutor. It is hardly unbelievable that clients come to him without regard to who his father is.
But Rehnquist should have recused himself; judges must avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
THere's got to be some reasonableness limitation on that general principle, otherwise anyone could create an appearance of impropriety simply by alleging that there is one. ("You went to college with the uncle of a vice president of the defendant, so that creates an appearance...")
That's ridiculous. The justices all have life tenure and salary protection. The chief has no extraordinary power: he assigns the writing of opinions in some cases, and he essentially acts as MC at court.
I got first post so you admire me greatly/I spell definitely like you could rhyme it with lately/I got high karma 'cause I got personality/And I'm gonna rock the mike just like I rock it with Natalie
Trolls get bowled over and act all flustered with me/Sucking up hot grits like a Dustbuster sucks fleas/Hey, script kiddies, I've got your private keys!/And can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of these?
All these posts suggesting that this is a troll must be right. I mean, really, shipping something to Russia via Finland? That's got to be just crazy talk, right? You won't bait me, troll. I've got your number.
... in books on web development should be forced to eat them. Anyone developing for the web is going to have a net connection by which they can obtain a fresh copy of anything they need (even a 56K modem will usually do in a pinch). Instead, the prices are jacked up by $10/unit and we're stuck with some worthless plastic that makes the back cover unwieldy. Grrr...
Sure you can make existing hardware illegal -- for example, some states have made radar detectors illegal, and that doesn't just mean new ones. Of course, most legislators are smart enough to know that it's a bad idea to turn your constituents into criminals, at least retrospectively, so this doesn't happen much.
Prior art must be published, IIRC. Proving that you invented something in your basement prior to the patent holder does not affect the validity of the patent.
DMCA says that reverse engineering isn't allowed except for the purpose of interoperability.
I believe the DMCA prohibition is limited to reverse engineering copyright protection mechanisms or some such. It certainly isn't a blanket ban on all reverse engineering.
Correct me if I'm wrong lawyers in the audience, but a cease and desist letter really doesn't mean anything. That is to say, I can send you a cease and desist letter to tell you to stop drinking Pepsi. It doesn't mean I have any legal merit in a lawsuit and it doesn't mean I will sue you, but it is essentially an official threat.
One qualification: A letter does mean that if the recipient is later sued or prosecuted for the conduct described in the letter, there can be no question that the recipient was acting intentionally. (That is, the recipient can't later say, "I had no idea this person had a copyright/patent which might cover what I was doing." In this regard, it would be interesting to know if any recipient of a C&D letter in this case has received a letter which references a specific copyright, patent or license term.)
Slashdot Mirror
Given enough aircraft, all runways are shallow.
You can't appeal the same judgment more than once, because -- generally speaking -- if you don't raise an issue on the first appeal, you waive it. Your cynicism is unwarranted.
And even in cases where there are both kinds of issues -- constitutional and nonconstitutional -- the Court will try to decide the case by resolving only the nonconstitutional question if it can.
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 31 provides for 40 days for service of the initial brief, 30 days for service of the responsive brief, and 14 for service of a reply brief, for a total of something like three months. The story suggests Microsoft is looking for 60, 60, 30, or an additional two months in total, about half of which would go to the government.
That provision of the Constitution protects the rights of defendants in criminal cases. It does not grant any rights to the government or state attorneys general as plaintiffs in a civil case.
Also, there are no "multiple levels" of courts between the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the U.S. Supreme Court, unless "multiple" is permitted to mean "one." After the District Court -- Jackson's court -- there is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Then there is the U.S. Supreme Court. The end.
A better question is: Other than the DMCA -- which has a narrow though not insignificant scope -- what makes you think that reverse engineering is not legally protected in the States?
No. Under American law, absent a special statutory provision or really, really abusive conduct (e.g., suing someone for something which is absolutely and completely fictional) a defendant can't sue to recover attorneys' fees from a losing plaintiff.
Actually, Valenti is a Harvard MBA and former ad man and LBJ aide. He's never been an actor so far as I know.
I understand that the encrypted :CueCat output includes device identification information unique to each particular CC, so two seemingly identical CCs will produce different output. I think you can cut out that portion of the encrypted string, but then you're diddling with the output and you're back to square one.
Well, if you check his bio, he's a litigation partner in one of Boston's largest law firms who served for five years as a federal prosecutor. It is hardly unbelievable that clients come to him without regard to who his father is.
In the event of a tie, the lower court's ruling stands.
THere's got to be some reasonableness limitation on that general principle, otherwise anyone could create an appearance of impropriety simply by alleging that there is one. ("You went to college with the uncle of a vice president of the defendant, so that creates an appearance ...")
That's ridiculous. The justices all have life tenure and salary protection. The chief has no extraordinary power: he assigns the writing of opinions in some cases, and he essentially acts as MC at court.
Trolls get bowled over and act all flustered with me/Sucking up hot grits like a Dustbuster sucks fleas/Hey, script kiddies, I've got your private keys!/And can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of these?
(File under: Be careful for what you wish for.)
All these posts suggesting that this is a troll must be right. I mean, really, shipping something to Russia via Finland? That's got to be just crazy talk, right? You won't bait me, troll. I've got your number.
... in books on web development should be forced to eat them. Anyone developing for the web is going to have a net connection by which they can obtain a fresh copy of anything they need (even a 56K modem will usually do in a pinch). Instead, the prices are jacked up by $10/unit and we're stuck with some worthless plastic that makes the back cover unwieldy. Grrr...
Shockingly, this is an urban myth.
And now, the nominees for most cowardly disclaimer in a Slashdot comment ...
Sure you can make existing hardware illegal -- for example, some states have made radar detectors illegal, and that doesn't just mean new ones. Of course, most legislators are smart enough to know that it's a bad idea to turn your constituents into criminals, at least retrospectively, so this doesn't happen much.
Isn't that incentive enough?
Welcome to this planet. I take it you are not familiar with humans?
Prior art must be published, IIRC. Proving that you invented something in your basement prior to the patent holder does not affect the validity of the patent.
It just shows you how law has advanced. 1920s: Monkey Trial. 2000s: Flying Butt Monkey Trial.
I believe the DMCA prohibition is limited to reverse engineering copyright protection mechanisms or some such. It certainly isn't a blanket ban on all reverse engineering.
One qualification: A letter does mean that if the recipient is later sued or prosecuted for the conduct described in the letter, there can be no question that the recipient was acting intentionally. (That is, the recipient can't later say, "I had no idea this person had a copyright/patent which might cover what I was doing." In this regard, it would be interesting to know if any recipient of a C&D letter in this case has received a letter which references a specific copyright, patent or license term.)