Re:I for one welcome our new SCO overlords.
on
SCO Targets UK Firms
·
· Score: 1
There's no cause of action. They entered a (settlement) contract, with consideration on both sides--namely, SCO agrees to stop litigating for $699, and Defendant agreed to stop defending so that SCO would stop litigating. There's no tort.
Now, is there a contract coa? You'd probably have to show that the contract was unenforceable, probably as a fraud. VERY hard to do, since the settlements were (probably) approved by a court. Settlement contracts are pretty rock-solid enforceable.
Umm, you skipped the step where a third party gets bound by a K. and just because he used the page to see what others see when they search him doesn't mean he necessarily agreed to their TOS. If they were indeed committing a tort, and required him to give up his rights to find out that out, there's no way in hell that'll stand up in court. A simple reference to fraud/deception should be sufficient to kill your argument in court.
Imagine what happens when insurance co.s start to use this list. Republicans will probably sanction this anti-consumer behavior, given their track history w/ respect to tort reform.
if 867-5309 is original expression (which it looks like, since the selection of those numbers in the song was original), wouldn't a sale of this number (assuming it's transferrable) be distribution to the public? Fair use factors seem to cut both ways.
actually, repubs have typically been good for tech competititon. see republican opposition to the broadcast flag (especially oren hatch and john mccain). i'd like to a paper i wrote, but it links to (c)ed material (westlaw pdfs).
actually, their account of the events isn't hearsay. but their version of the letter would be hearsay. they would need to introduce an authenticated copy.
no, i did it because it's the law i know. see my disclaimer. it wasn't being used as authority, but as a reference for those who might look it up.
satire protection isn't in the 1978 act, at least not explicitly. it sprouts from the first amendment, and could be read into S.107 (fair use) of USC Title 17 (the (c) act).
That's just the point - artists should be able to dupe readers by their titles if there's no confusion as to source after opening the book/clicking the link. The 9th circuit doctrine of initial interest confusion would be easily trumped by satire/parody free speech concerns.
"while the function of making new law belongs to the legislative branch of the Government, that of expounding the standing law, of which the Constitution would be part and parcel, belongs to the Judiciary." -here.
Remember, we're discussing the MA homosexuality cases. These could easily be analyzed under the Equal Rights amendments (Indeed, they have been this summer, when the USSC overturned TX's antisodomy law). So your argument is moot - the court would be interpreting the Constitution as expounded by the SC. Duh.
I didn't say courts make policy. I didn't say they represent the people. And I'm not talking about "loose constructions" - I was referencing the courts' job to keep law in line with basic principles like fairness, justice, and efficiency. Sometimes courts make a new doctrine (sui generis), because that's the only thing to do. Indeed, it's like they say "duh" - you can't do x, or you have to do y.
You want to talk conlaw? Sure - See Art. III, S. 2 - "The judicial power shall extend to all cases in Law or Equity." Equity courts began in Englad when royal and legislative law were insufficient to handle problems. The US is a Common Law country.
again this untruth - people see much more than 30 fps. It's just that ~24 fps is sufficient to convey motion to the brain. You're just wrong about the diff b/t 1080and720 - the resolution is better (sharper), interlaced or not.
Besides the privacy arguments, which have been addressed by other replies to this parent, I don't think they could be held liable. The real issue is that the RIAA couldn't send them the requrests.
right on. but prejudices change, and humanity evolves by the generation. this shit will eventually die, and the next generation will see the prejudice for just what it is.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no cause of action. They entered a (settlement) contract, with consideration on both sides--namely, SCO agrees to stop litigating for $699, and Defendant agreed to stop defending so that SCO would stop litigating. There's no tort. Now, is there a contract coa? You'd probably have to show that the contract was unenforceable, probably as a fraud. VERY hard to do, since the settlements were (probably) approved by a court. Settlement contracts are pretty rock-solid enforceable.
Seriously, I like ogg a lot, and wished players were gearing towards it. Not that I expected MS to support an open source codec (but the should).
Umm, you skipped the step where a third party gets bound by a K. and just because he used the page to see what others see when they search him doesn't mean he necessarily agreed to their TOS. If they were indeed committing a tort, and required him to give up his rights to find out that out, there's no way in hell that'll stand up in court. A simple reference to fraud/deception should be sufficient to kill your argument in court.
Imagine what happens when insurance co.s start to use this list. Republicans will probably sanction this anti-consumer behavior, given their track history w/ respect to tort reform.
no, the question is whether it's property. not everything has an owner -- see the 802.11b spectrum.
if 867-5309 is original expression (which it looks like, since the selection of those numbers in the song was original), wouldn't a sale of this number (assuming it's transferrable) be distribution to the public? Fair use factors seem to cut both ways.
GBX sneaks, or Timberland deck shoes.
duh--i meant discrete.
yeah, those have pretty good sound and are very very comfortable. but not indiscrete, as the op wants.
gotcha. thanks.
i thought projectors were bad with video consoles - something about the refresh i think
here's a link to a non-contributorily infringing version. happy holidays.
while not a fundamental right (like equal protection, etc.), it is good policy. but your post remains a really good one.
it's not a fundamental right. fair use can only be used as a defense.
actually, repubs have typically been good for tech competititon. see republican opposition to the broadcast flag (especially oren hatch and john mccain). i'd like to a paper i wrote, but it links to (c)ed material (westlaw pdfs).
i assume those are only cases that got certed, yes?
actually, their account of the events isn't hearsay. but their version of the letter would be hearsay. they would need to introduce an authenticated copy.
satire protection isn't in the 1978 act, at least not explicitly. it sprouts from the first amendment, and could be read into S.107 (fair use) of USC Title 17 (the (c) act).
That's just the point - artists should be able to dupe readers by their titles if there's no confusion as to source after opening the book/clicking the link. The 9th circuit doctrine of initial interest confusion would be easily trumped by satire/parody free speech concerns.
Remember, we're discussing the MA homosexuality cases. These could easily be analyzed under the Equal Rights amendments (Indeed, they have been this summer, when the USSC overturned TX's antisodomy law). So your argument is moot - the court would be interpreting the Constitution as expounded by the SC. Duh.
You want to talk conlaw? Sure - See Art. III, S. 2 - "The judicial power shall extend to all cases in Law or Equity." Equity courts began in Englad when royal and legislative law were insufficient to handle problems. The US is a Common Law country.
again this untruth - people see much more than 30 fps. It's just that ~24 fps is sufficient to convey motion to the brain. You're just wrong about the diff b/t 1080and720 - the resolution is better (sharper), interlaced or not.
Besides the privacy arguments, which have been addressed by other replies to this parent, I don't think they could be held liable. The real issue is that the RIAA couldn't send them the requrests.
right on. but prejudices change, and humanity evolves by the generation. this shit will eventually die, and the next generation will see the prejudice for just what it is.
Wrong. It is the job of the judiciary to make law -- America is a common law country. Duh.