I understand patent protection, and understand misuse.
While there is definitely overlap between patent misuse and antitrust (see generally Posner), I think your concern that these patents place Verizon in the position of Ma Bell is a bit overboard. Clearly there are oodles of VOIP vendors who figured out a way to place products on the market without infringing Verizon's patents.
Patents by definition restrain others from selling the patented invention. You may be alluding to patent misuse, but that doctrine really doesnt apply in the Vonage case.
There are two independent clauses in the Fourth Ammendment:
1) 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;
2) 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.
Neither clause contains your rule that "No warrant, no searches or seizures". Instead Rule 1 states that "no searches unless they are reasonable" and Rule 2 states "No warrants without probable cause."
The Fourth Amendment does not say "No searches without a warrant." If the drafters meant that, they could have said it, and we are free to amend it at any time, but we haven't.
The Fourth Amendment merely requires that searches be reasonable.
Moreover, in a situation where the information is publicly disseminated, e.g when you transmit data across the world, over the internet, to be handled by countless companies you don't know, no search occurs and therefore the Fourth Amendment doesn't even apply.
A fact which was hidden from the trial judge even tho it was known to the RIAA attorneys, who should have disclosed that to the court.
MRPC 3.3 "A lawyer shall not knowingly... fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel"
24 is the worst. The dialog is barely audible so your have to crank up the volume. Then there is an explosion, or even the ticking of the clock, and you rush to turn the volume back down so your ears don't bleed. More dialog, volume up...
"Moreover, there was no evidence that Sony had desired to bring about taping in violation of copyright or taken active steps to increase its profits from unlawful taping." Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. 545 U.S. 913
Not exactly. While the decision isn't binding anywhere but in the Ninth, it is persuasive authority everywhere. And given that the 9th is the most liberal circuit in the nation, how could a judge elsewhere decide that the decision isn't liberal enough?
what are the chances of completely different life forms from a completely different biogenesis from some other planet looking essentially like miniature versions of ourselves.
Mutual mistake is a special circumstance justifying recesion. In my hypo I used a Ferrari so that there would be no confusion that it was worth signifigantly more than $500.
"A contract is unenforcable unless both parties get some (roughly equal) benefit."
Wrong. If I agree to sell you my Ferrari for $500 bucks, absent fraud or other special circumstance, that contract is eenforceable. The saying is that courts will find consideration even if it is a mere peppercorn.
The ProCD / Klocek issue is not an adhesion issue, but rather a "battle of the forms" issue. Posner said the binding contract is formed when you click OK. Judge Vratil said it was when the purchase was made.
Slashdot Mirror
News flash: sex + cocaine feels fucking awesome.
Just delete it.
I understand patent protection, and understand misuse.
While there is definitely overlap between patent misuse and antitrust (see generally Posner), I think your concern that these patents place Verizon in the position of Ma Bell is a bit overboard. Clearly there are oodles of VOIP vendors who figured out a way to place products on the market without infringing Verizon's patents.
Patents by definition restrain others from selling the patented invention. You may be alluding to patent misuse, but that doctrine really doesnt apply in the Vonage case.
There are two independent clauses in the Fourth Ammendment:
1) 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;
2) 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.
Neither clause contains your rule that "No warrant, no searches or seizures". Instead Rule 1 states that "no searches unless they are reasonable" and Rule 2 states "No warrants without probable cause."
The Fourth Amendment does not say "No searches without a warrant." If the drafters meant that, they could have said it, and we are free to amend it at any time, but we haven't.
The Fourth Amendment merely requires that searches be reasonable.
Moreover, in a situation where the information is publicly disseminated, e.g when you transmit data across the world, over the internet, to be handled by countless companies you don't know, no search occurs and therefore the Fourth Amendment doesn't even apply.
Then it's just hot air, hence its vaporware.
It's not in the Constitution.
The parties are referred to as plaintiffs and the defendants. There is no prosecution.
Prosection - The commencement and carrying out of any action or scheme. Black's Law.
For example. If a petitioner just stops doing anything on a case it will be dismissed for want of prosecution.
There is no punishment
Given appropriate facts, a civil defendant may be punished in the form of punitive damages.
A fact which was hidden from the trial judge even tho it was known to the RIAA attorneys, who should have disclosed that to the court.
MRPC 3.3 "A lawyer shall not knowingly ... fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel"
I bet the plaintiffs' attorneys on those cases wish you knew what you were talking about.
And we're supposed to be surprised?
NOT.
24 is the worst. The dialog is barely audible so your have to crank up the volume. Then there is an explosion, or even the ticking of the clock, and you rush to turn the volume back down so your ears don't bleed. More dialog, volume up ...
"Moreover, there was no evidence that Sony had desired to bring about taping in violation of copyright or taken active steps to increase its profits from unlawful taping." Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.
545 U.S. 913
Leftwing pinko whines because everything isn't free.
News at 11.
That's my guess.
Not exactly. While the decision isn't binding anywhere but in the Ninth, it is persuasive authority everywhere. And given that the 9th is the most liberal circuit in the nation, how could a judge elsewhere decide that the decision isn't liberal enough?
Who could argue with Posner? The Kansas case of Klocek held to the contrary.
EB
"And the chances of aliens being humanoid in appearance are close to zero."
Why would you say that? Assuming it evolved in a similar environment I would expect it to evolve similarly.
Are you familiar with the analogous forms of mammals and marsupials?
Mutual mistake is a special circumstance justifying recesion. In my hypo I used a Ferrari so that there would be no confusion that it was worth signifigantly more than $500.
You're mixing up a few issues here.
First consideration:
"A contract is unenforcable unless both parties get some (roughly equal) benefit."
Wrong. If I agree to sell you my Ferrari for $500 bucks, absent fraud or other special circumstance, that contract is eenforceable. The saying is that courts will find consideration even if it is a mere peppercorn.
The ProCD / Klocek issue is not an adhesion issue, but rather a "battle of the forms" issue.
Posner said the binding contract is formed when you click OK. Judge Vratil said it was when the purchase was made.
Or maybe not. Your analogy is weak.
You're almost as dumb as the people who call the cops when the stuff they stole gets stolen.
Go straight to stupidville. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200.
The rep who ran a gay brothel out of his home?