The jurisdiction point is clear enough that DJ didn't even bother raising it, instead they tried the obtuse argument that they should be sued in NJ because that's where they published it. This is despite their own admission that it is a worldwide publication
This argument in itself is poor because although the court didn't spell it out in its ruling both the plaintiff and defendants are "residents" in the courts jurisdiction which makes it the most logical venue for action.
In the sections you quoted the court noted that a defendant which had no presence in the courts jurisdiction has little to fear because the court can excercise no power over it.
A question to be considered in any such cases is the one of "Is there a more appropriate venue for this action". In the DJ case it's hard to see how another venue would be more appropriate as both plaintiff & defendant fall under the jurisdiction of the court.
In the DeCSS matther there is the problem of the defendant having no legal presence in the state of California. Clearly federal court would have been a better option but then the plaintiff would lose the advantage of the California Trade Secrets law.
Very often a court will make a decision and then seek to find legal justification for that decision, rather than the other way round. So while much of my reasoning may have been in the minds of the judges it's not necessary for them to enumerate every reason for their decision as long as the justification they give is valid in law.
Consider the possibility of you as a US Citizen deliberately positioning your web server in another country to sidestep US law, would you expect to be untouched by US jurisdiction for breaking US law ?
But you miss the point - it's the combination of the presence in Australia giving the courts jurisdiction and the fact that publication was world wide. The court indicated that defendants beyond it's jurisdiction would not be affected by any such case, without bringing a separate action in the defendants jurisdiction.
The defense argument that a worldwide corporation with offices in most major countries only published something in NJ is stupid, they were never going to get away with that.
The Australian court ruling is meaningless for anybody that doesn't live or have a business presence in Australia as any judgement would have to be enforced through your local courts.
Macrovision is enabled on a disc by disc basis, there's quite a lot of discs that don't trigger the macrovision encoding on the player outputs. They have to pay a fee to Macrovision for every disc that uses it so some publishers don't bother.
It's odd but members of congress when they've spoken about Macrovision believe that it is only used on Rental tapes and they don't consider it authorized for use on retail tapes. However we know that their both the same tape. I'm just not sure why these members have congress have never noticed it on tapes they've bought. I forget the links to these quotes but it came up when the issue preventing home recording of digital TV was being discussed.
No the difference in this case is that by having a business presence in Australia you submit to the Jursidiction of the courts. Conversely by having no presence at all in California you do not have to submit to the jurisdiction of the California Courts.
Already, the U.S. is already indirectly disagreeing with Australia over this point
The matter in Australia is a little different as the defendant in that case did have a business presence there and would therefore normally be subject to Australian jurisdiction anyway. Once you establish a business presence in a state or other country you fall under the jurisdiction of the local courts.
As of today Justice O'Conner has rescinded the stay and the California Supreme Court ruling will stand. The case in california is effectively over. Nothing prevents the DVDCCA filing an action in the defendant's home state of Texas though. However this was obviously not their preferred option in they were prepared to go to the Supreme Court to keep the case in California.
You're still required to have one MS-Office license per desktop if you're using Citrix - Microsoft does not allow concurrent use licensing on any of it's products.
I get tired of hearing about how foreigners are taking all are jobs, women, sponging off the
Oops - an example of when spell checkers can't help you - thought our and typed are.
Comments about immigration are relevant to H1B discussions as H1B is a dual-intent visa i.e. even though you are admitted as a non-immigrant you are allowed to enter with immigrant intent. If you can find somebody to sponsor you for a green card while you are here (employer, wife, relative who is a US citizen) then you can stay permanently.
Personally I think the failings with the H1B system are that they give the employer too much power. H1B workers are only allowed to remain as long as they are employed by the petitioning employer. You have 10 days to leave (or find another employer willing to file an H1B for you) if you lose your job. Consequently employees wind up having to accept whatever terms the employer imposes. I've even heard of employers demanding that the H1b worker repays most of his salary to the employer or be fired. This is illegal but what can the worker do ? If he reports it he'll have to leave the country.
Certainly I agree that there needs to be better oversight of the system but I don't agree that foreign workers are inherently a bad thing like the article seems to suggest.
We do have a process where people (with exceptional skills) can get a green card through employment rather than an H1-B but it takes around 2 - 3 years from filing to the propsed employee being allowed to enter the US. This is basically unworkable unless the employee is already here on an H1-B.
How do I mod the story as flamebait - these arguements have been dredged up over and over again. Reality check guys - the numbers of H1B visas issued this year are drastically down because market conditions mean there are enough US workers to go around.
As for some of the goofy proposals requiring limits of 2 years on viasa how frustrating would that be for an employer to have to replace people every 2 years.
I get tired of hearing about how foreigners are taking all are jobs, women, sponging off the state etc.... Although sponging off the state and stealing are jobs seems to be mutually exlusive.
Ok what were talking about here is a charge that should relate to stealing trade secrets on behalf of a foreign power.... In this case it seems like a simple breach of confidentially.
This of course assumes that he did indeed steal the documents... if they're so darned secret why were they sent to an outside law firm? If they were going to patent them they'd have to publish anyway if they weren't why did they send them to their lawyers ?
It's possible that his working for the same lawfirm was purely concidental and they're using that link in order to bring criminal charges.
Either way this is a law meant for spies not crackers. It seems like a major sledgehammer job.
Incidentally they refer to DirecTV's "NEW" access cards - I've had directv for nearly 5 years and still have the original access card. Are these the new ones they're talking about ?
Yeah - that's just the usual misuse of law enforcement by corporations - remember it is a crime to try and make stores honor an advertised price in some places (best buy last year). If they had to enter your property to take it that is probably illegal otherwise it's fair game.
Does anybody remember the claim "The microsoft network is an alternative to the internet".... I kid you not this was in some early promotional material for MSN.
The difference is that windows is an English word and a word in common usuage to describe the windowing functionality of a GUI. Linux is a made up word that is not descriptive of the product and is therefore entitled to stronger trademark protection.
I seem to remeber the original trademark registration being for Digital Video Disc - the Versatile came later after they started thinking of more uses for them.
Re:More interestingly, the article states:
on
1.5 TB DVD by 2010
·
· Score: 2
Wouldn't it be easier to just hook up a bee to a computer:-)
Imagine a Beowulf Cluster of these - or would that be a swarm ?
I imagine that the various tests that forensic scientists perform are rigorously standardized. There's no reason that digital processes couldn't be similarly regulated. I supposed what is called for is the certification of "official" digital filters, that are analyzed and confirmed to manipulate the image in an "unbiased" fashion.
Yes they are - but on the other hand there have been many miscarriages of justice because the jury thought the forensic scientist was giving them hard facts rather than just his opinion. Circumstatial evidence of any kind is open to more than one explanation.
Even a side by side comparison in court of the original and the enhanced print would convice most people however in this case the original print is missing in action which is probably why the defense is raising an objection at this point.
There seems to be a lack of credibility where you claim you found a print at the scene but then can't / won't produce the item bearing that print in court.
That's basically right - the judge saying the law doesn't apply to what they did does not overturn the law. However it gives us a more realistic perspective on what judges think the law should apply to than we had before.
The fact that the rocket was found orbiting in separately but in essentially the same orbit as the satellite points to more than a failure to ignite something blew up in a limited fashion.
Also the decision to de-orbit astra 1k rather than try to move it to a geostationary orbit under it's own power points to damage to the craft.
You're right in that in this launch there was an additional booster to move the satellite to GTO - however I'm not sure whether this was provided by the russian launch service or as part of the satellite package. The russian mission controllers made a big deal out of saying the failure wasn't theirs.
I admit much of my information on how satellites reach geostationary orbit was based on earlier launches where the rocket did no more than deliver the satellite into a low orbit.
Also don't believe everything you read on a page with a starchaser banner ad on it:-)
Slashdot Mirror
The jurisdiction point is clear enough that DJ didn't even bother raising it, instead they tried the obtuse argument that they should be sued in NJ because that's where they published it. This is despite their own admission that it is a worldwide publication
This argument in itself is poor because although the court didn't spell it out in its ruling both the plaintiff and defendants are "residents" in the courts jurisdiction which makes it the most logical venue for action.
In the sections you quoted the court noted that a defendant which had no presence in the courts jurisdiction has little to fear because the court can excercise no power over it.
A question to be considered in any such cases is the one of "Is there a more appropriate venue for this action". In the DJ case it's hard to see how another venue would be more appropriate as both plaintiff & defendant fall under the jurisdiction of the court.
In the DeCSS matther there is the problem of the defendant having no legal presence in the state of California. Clearly federal court would have been a better option but then the plaintiff would lose the advantage of the California Trade Secrets law.
Very often a court will make a decision and then seek to find legal justification for that decision, rather than the other way round. So while much of my reasoning may have been in the minds of the judges it's not necessary for them to enumerate every reason for their decision as long as the justification they give is valid in law.
Consider the possibility of you as a US Citizen deliberately positioning your web server in another country to sidestep US law, would you expect to be untouched by US jurisdiction for breaking US law ?
But you miss the point - it's the combination of the presence in Australia giving the courts jurisdiction and the fact that publication was world wide. The court indicated that defendants beyond it's jurisdiction would not be affected by any such case, without bringing a separate action in the defendants jurisdiction.
The defense argument that a worldwide corporation with offices in most major countries only published something in NJ is stupid, they were never going to get away with that.
The Australian court ruling is meaningless for anybody that doesn't live or have a business presence in Australia as any judgement would have to be enforced through your local courts.
Macrovision is enabled on a disc by disc basis, there's quite a lot of discs that don't trigger the macrovision encoding on the player outputs. They have to pay a fee to Macrovision for every disc that uses it so some publishers don't bother.
It's odd but members of congress when they've spoken about Macrovision believe that it is only used on Rental tapes and they don't consider it authorized for use on retail tapes. However we know that their both the same tape. I'm just not sure why these members have congress have never noticed it on tapes they've bought. I forget the links to these quotes but it came up when the issue preventing home recording of digital TV was being discussed.
No the difference in this case is that by having a business presence in Australia you submit to the Jursidiction of the courts. Conversely by having no presence at all in California you do not have to submit to the jurisdiction of the California Courts.
Already, the U.S. is already indirectly disagreeing with Australia over this point
The matter in Australia is a little different as the defendant in that case did have a business presence there and would therefore normally be subject to Australian jurisdiction anyway. Once you establish a business presence in a state or other country you fall under the jurisdiction of the local courts.
As of today Justice O'Conner has rescinded the stay and the California Supreme Court ruling will stand. The case in california is effectively over. Nothing prevents the DVDCCA filing an action in the defendant's home state of Texas though. However this was obviously not their preferred option in they were prepared to go to the Supreme Court to keep the case in California.
You're still required to have one MS-Office license per desktop if you're using Citrix - Microsoft does not allow concurrent use licensing on any of it's products.
I get tired of hearing about how foreigners are taking all are jobs, women, sponging off the
:-)
Oops - an example of when spell checkers can't help you - thought our and typed are.
Comments about immigration are relevant to H1B discussions as H1B is a dual-intent visa i.e. even though you are admitted as a non-immigrant you are allowed to enter with immigrant intent. If you can find somebody to sponsor you for a green card while you are here (employer, wife, relative who is a US citizen) then you can stay permanently.
Personally I think the failings with the H1B system are that they give the employer too much power. H1B workers are only allowed to remain as long as they are employed by the petitioning employer. You have 10 days to leave (or find another employer willing to file an H1B for you) if you lose your job. Consequently employees wind up having to accept whatever terms the employer imposes. I've even heard of employers demanding that the H1b worker repays most of his salary to the employer or be fired. This is illegal but what can the worker do ? If he reports it he'll have to leave the country.
Certainly I agree that there needs to be better oversight of the system but I don't agree that foreign workers are inherently a bad thing like the article seems to suggest.
We do have a process where people (with exceptional skills) can get a green card through employment rather than an H1-B but it takes around 2 - 3 years from filing to the propsed employee being allowed to enter the US. This is basically unworkable unless the employee is already here on an H1-B.
Feel free to correct spelling etc
How do I mod the story as flamebait - these arguements have been dredged up over and over again. Reality check guys - the numbers of H1B visas issued this year are drastically down because market conditions mean there are enough US workers to go around.
As for some of the goofy proposals requiring limits of 2 years on viasa how frustrating would that be for an employer to have to replace people every 2 years.
I get tired of hearing about how foreigners are taking all are jobs, women, sponging off the state etc.... Although sponging off the state and stealing are jobs seems to be mutually exlusive.
Ok what were talking about here is a charge that should relate to stealing trade secrets on behalf of a foreign power.... In this case it seems like a simple breach of confidentially.
... if they're so darned secret why were they sent to an outside law firm? If they were going to patent them they'd have to publish anyway if they weren't why did they send them to their lawyers ?
This of course assumes that he did indeed steal the documents
It's possible that his working for the same lawfirm was purely concidental and they're using that link in order to bring criminal charges.
Either way this is a law meant for spies not crackers. It seems like a major sledgehammer job.
Incidentally they refer to DirecTV's "NEW" access cards - I've had directv for nearly 5 years and still have the original access card. Are these the new ones they're talking about ?
Yeah - that's just the usual misuse of law enforcement by corporations - remember it is a crime to try and make stores honor an advertised price in some places (best buy last year). If they had to enter your property to take it that is probably illegal otherwise it's fair game.
Yeah just imagine the chaos if all of these flaws were exploited.
Does anybody remember the claim "The microsoft network is an alternative to the internet" .... I kid you not this was in some early promotional material for MSN.
The difference is that windows is an English word and a word in common usuage to describe the windowing functionality of a GUI. Linux is a made up word that is not descriptive of the product and is therefore entitled to stronger trademark protection.
Yes - the footage i saw of the shockwave travelling through the ground looked unnervingly similar to an underground nuclear test.
Pre-recorded dvd's aren't recorded at all they're pressed like vinyl records and cd's. Then the layers are sandwiched together.
I seem to remeber the original trademark registration being for Digital Video Disc - the Versatile came later after they started thinking of more uses for them.
Wouldn't it be easier to just hook up a bee to a computer :-)
Imagine a Beowulf Cluster of these - or would that be a swarm ?
Thanks for reminding me - I was wondering what the significance of that was. I remember now. ARRRRGGHHHHHHH!!!
I imagine that the various tests that forensic scientists perform are rigorously standardized. There's no reason that digital processes couldn't be similarly regulated. I supposed what is called for is the certification of "official" digital filters, that are analyzed and confirmed to manipulate the image in an "unbiased" fashion.
Yes they are - but on the other hand there have been many miscarriages of justice because the jury thought the forensic scientist was giving them hard facts rather than just his opinion. Circumstatial evidence of any kind is open to more than one explanation.
Even a side by side comparison in court of the original and the enhanced print would convice most people however in this case the original print is missing in action which is probably why the defense is raising an objection at this point.
There seems to be a lack of credibility where you claim you found a print at the scene but then can't / won't produce the item bearing that print in court.
Nearly all crimes involve a mental element - an intent to commit the crime - without it there is no crime.
Ignorance of the law is not the issue here but whether you committed the illegal act with dishonest intent.
That's basically right - the judge saying the law doesn't apply to what they did does not overturn the law. However it gives us a more realistic perspective on what judges think the law should apply to than we had before.
The fact that the rocket was found orbiting in separately but in essentially the same orbit as the satellite points to more than a failure to ignite something blew up in a limited fashion.
:-)
Also the decision to de-orbit astra 1k rather than try to move it to a geostationary orbit under it's own power points to damage to the craft.
You're right in that in this launch there was an additional booster to move the satellite to GTO - however I'm not sure whether this was provided by the russian launch service or as part of the satellite package. The russian mission controllers made a big deal out of saying the failure wasn't theirs.
I admit much of my information on how satellites reach geostationary orbit was based on earlier launches where the rocket did no more than deliver the satellite into a low orbit.
Also don't believe everything you read on a page with a starchaser banner ad on it