Yes is the simple answer to the first question. Probably not is the answer to the second question. If the Segway is covered by patents and this guy is using their patented technology in developing it then he'd likely be liable for infringement under the above provision of the US Code. What damages there would be can be found in 35 USC 281-287. No this isn't legal advice. Talk to a lawyer before considering building this device as described in that you may run into legal trouble as well. He might also be liable for actively inducing others to infringe but I dunno about that. If the Segway is patented, then you can get a copy of the plans for it from the patent office. That's the deal with patents. You tell everyone how to make what you made and in return we'll allow you full rights to exclude others from making it for X years.
Just be glad they aren't looking to nail people with criminal charges. See: 17 USC 506 which refers to 18 USC 2319 which, in a simple summary, says that you can go to jail for up to three years (first copyright offense) or fined some amount of money (it's in another part of 18 USC and I don't want to find it) or both if you've shared music that ends up being worth $2,500 or more for the total number of copies shared. I dunno exactly how the language of this section is interpreted, but you could well end up in jail. And there's a decent argument for them seizing and destroying your computer as it'd be an instrument of copyright infringement if you were convicted. Who knows. Ask a lawyer.
Linux benefits greatly from strong copyright legislation as does all other Open Source/Free Software. The GPL and other such licenses are licenses to use copyrighted things in exchange for agreeing to follow the terms. There's no money involved which makes people think that copyright law isn't involved. But there clearly is a contract. You're just giving up something other than money in order to use linux. If you're a famous movie maker, you might make an agreement to use certain songs in a movie and prominently feature the bands who created them in ads in exchange for the right to use those songs. No money involved and you have the right to use those songs. If you could offer something substantial other than money to get a copy of music you like then maybe you could make a deal to get it. But it's a lot simpler to just use money as opposed to figuring out something else you could barter with to get the rights and negotiating a contract with the people who have the right to license the music.
Yes, there was music and inventions and the such before there were laws protecting them. The thing is that in order to encourage more music, more inventions, better music, better inventions, etc. the writers of the US Constitution decided that they'd offer an incentive of a limited monopoly to encourage people to create more. Given the pace of technological advance and the spread of music from being mostly found in the courts of the wealthy to being found everywhere, I'd say it was a pretty good idea.
And useful arts included literature originally. Not only manuals about how to do things, but literature that was purely for enjoyment as well. Congress has decided that music is a useful art so they included it in copyright law. I happen to think music is a useful art if for no other reason than I find that if I throw on some good tunes when I'm working on something I generally find myself getting into a groove and thereby being more productive. And some music just generally makes me happy. Which is pretty useful to me, if no one else.
Once you've accepted that it's useful, you next need to realize that the contradiction you've tried to point out is only in your own logic. If I write a song and it sucks then nobody will want it and that's that. But if someone does want the song they have no right to copy it without my permission. My permission might include paying me some money for it.
Next, though, someone will bring up the argument of how the artists are getting screwed because they only get (insert small amount of money) per CD. The problem with that argument is that the artists negotiated a contract with the record company that specified how much compensation they'd get. You aren't a part of their contractual relationship and thus have no right to assert fictional rights on behalf of the artists.
The ever popular response to this is that the artists are forced to sign bad contracts if they want to succeed. Two problems with that. First, assuming they were getting screwed, in their minds whatever provisions they didn't like were offset by other things they did like such that in the end they they signed the contract. Second, if the deal does turn out to be really bad for the artist, then they can break it and deal with damages or else try to claim that it was unconscionable. Yes, you can claim that a contract is unconscionable and even win, but only if it truly is and that's up to the judge to decide. It's a hard argument to make but contracts would be meaningless if it wasn't.
So to sum up, while a monopoly doesn't guarantee the right to earn a living from something if nobody wants it, that doesn't mean that you have a right to just take it. It only costs something like $10-20 to produce a pair of sneakers that costs $120. I don't want to pay $120 for those sneakers, and after all they only cost $10 to make anyway. So I can just take them right? And if the factory worker in Indonesia shows up I'll pay him/her the $10 and be done with it. Not wanting something and not wanting to pay the price asked for it are two different things. The former is fine. The latter is too, so long as you don't just take the thing without paying. People do have a right to make money on things that people want. If you don't want to pay $20 for a CD, then don't buy it. But taking it (or more to the point the music on it which is the reason people buy cds; no one sane would pay for a useless piece of plastic) without paying for it and saying that the artist is getting screwed so it's ok and you'd send the artist money if you could in some way is the same as me taking the sneakers and saying I'd pay the factory worker the money if I could. You'd call the latter stealing (I hope) and so the former should be flat admitted as stealing as well.
In general, yes. But there's a difference between a court having jurisdiction over a matter and a court having the ability to hale someone into court. All jurisdiction means (usually) is that the court is satisfied that someone in the court's zone of influence has been affected by someone else's action or has affected someone else by their own actions.
If the plaintiff and the defendant happen to reside in the same state (corporations reside both where their corporate papers are filed and where their principal place of business is) then generally absent a question of federal law ( 28 USC 1331 ) the federal court will kick it out to be dealt with in state courts. See the original post of mine for a more full explanation of the following: there's also jurisdiction in federal court when there's diversity of citizenship and the amount is above $75k.
But absent treaties for extradition and even sometimes despite such treaties, the only way to have a lawsuit in the US affect you if you live abroad is to come visit the US. Individual states in the US usually grant extradition to one another and various nations have treaties for extradition depending on the nature of the offense (usually criminal offenders will be extradited but you can get into situations where non-death penalty places will refuse to extradite to a death penalty place etc.).
All of this makes perfect sense to if you think about it. Bob lives in Brazil. He pisses off Jim in the US and costs Jim a lot of money. That person files a lawsuit and is able to serve Bob with notice of the lawsuit (persuant to FRCP 4(f); scroll down looking for f, the link is to FRCP 4). Bob refuses to answer therefore Bob loses (defaults). If Bob ever wants to visit the US it's going to be an expensive visit because he owes Jim whatever he lost and if Jim catches wind that Bob has come into the US then he can get law enforcement people to have a chat with Bob. I don't know exactly how it works from there, so you'll have to talk to a lawyer who deals in such things if you want the rest of the story, but if Bob never visits the US he's got nothing to worry about.
If you piss someone off, refuse to apologize or work the problem out in some way, and then later go to a party at that person's apartment building that he's also attending, doesn't it make sense he'd give you the cold shoulder and maybe make some snide remarks? It's the same idea. Just more expensive than hurt feelings from bad remarks.
I'm glad you took the time to misinform people about American law. Had you read the link, you would've noticed 28 USC 1332 was referenced (also known as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 1332). Here's a link to the code itself if you want it.
Basically, what the law says is that if one party is a resident of the state and the other is a resident of a foreign nation AND the damages claimed will be at least $75,000 then the Federal District Court for that state (or part of the state for larger states) has jurisdiction over the case.
Here they said they are residents of Boca Raton, FL, which is in the Southern District of Florida, SPAMHAUS et al are NOT in florida in any way, and they were going to claim damages of at least $75,000. They likely listed everyone and their cousins to make it perfectly clear that complete diversity of citizenship exists. If you don't have complete diversity of citizenship then the Federal Court will throw the case out because it's a State Court matter. It's a little more complex than that and IANAL. I am a law student but this IS NOT legal advice.
And for anyone who doesn't bother checking the above link to the USC, if the damages later end up being less than $75,000 then the plaintiff may not get costs and indeed might have to pay the costs so making a blind allegation that you meet the $75,000 mark can turn out to be expensive if a jury later awards you $1 and the judge levies the costs on you.
So next time you're going to make legal conjectures do at least attempt to do a little research.
already publishes a lot of official reporters. I believe Lexis publishes some as well. It's really not a big deal. There are no copyrights in court opinions (or they can't be exploited anyway; there's some case out there saying that). They're free to the public as far as I know. Lexis-Nexis and WestLaw both make their money adding additional content to opinions (e.g. headnotes, their own pagination). But they also do business publishing reporters.
You say they have a flaw and they sue you for libel or slander. You are absolutely allowed to show that what you said is true in court. Chances are the company will move for the record to be sealed so that your proof of the exploit will not be dispensed to the public at large. And there might well be questions about why you were poking around in the system trying to discover flaws which could lead to problems if you don't have any good answers. But assuming you can show a flaw, you should at least beat the libel/slander charge.
If you can figure out a way to show it without it being exploitable then I think you're in the clear. Beyond that it kinda becomes a question of how much you trust the people you're working with. Sharing a find with a few close friends and keeping it in the group leaves you, in a practical sense, in the clear. Whether it's legal I just plain don't know. If by peers you mean anyone out in the ether then I don't think there is a good way to do it.
It's hard to think up a really good analogy, but if you rent a movie and invite some friends over to watch it that's all good. If you rent a movie and share it with everyone online indiscriminately, that's not gonna fly.
Telling the company that you've found a flaw in their software is likely your best bet. Any company with good business sense would want to patch up an error in their software. Chances are they have some pretty good coders working for them so you'll have some peers to share it with. And ask them for credit in discovering it and discuss the possibility of sharing the general details once they've gotten a chance to create a patch and it's had time to propagate. You're best bet in any of this is to chat with a lawyer. Following the advice of a lawyer usually relieves you of a lot of liabilities should any problems arise.
Again, if you really need answers to these questions, talk to a lawyer. Find one who deals in copyrights if at all possible as that'll save you and him/her a lot of time. I think my answers above generally are in tune with the law as it is, but I can't really verify that. Good luck
What do you mean there's no incentive to fix them? How about when someone criminal breaks the system? Then Blackboard gets sued into oblivion because they knew about the problem and didn't do anything about it. I couldn't even begin to run down all the things they'd be sued under.
Person breaks system and steals coke. Coke figures this out and sues school. School calls cops to figure out who did it. School sues Blackboard for misrepresentation, fraud, breach of contract, negligence, and possibly a few other things as well. DA sues Blackboard for recklessly endangering the welfare of X,000 people (however many live on campus in buildings guarded by the cards). Trust me, they've got a lot of incentive.
Assuming that Blackboard's security has a flaw, then the first amendment protects your right to say Blackboard's security system has a flaw in it.
The first amendment might protect your ability to talk about the flaw in general terms.
The first amendment does not protect your ability to instruct people about the precise details of the flaw and how to exploit it.
The difference? Saying there's a flaw is beneficial because then the company knows and can fix it. Saying how the flaw works and how to exploit it facilitates criminal activity.
Tell a kid that the kid who made fun of him is an idiot and someday he'll die lonely and maybe you'll have made him feel better.
Tell the kid that if he takes the gun on the table, points it at that other kid who made fun of him, and pulls the trigger that the other kid won't make fun of him anymore and you'll land yourself in jail.
In both instances you're talking about speech. See the difference?
And btw, picking a lock almost inherently involves tools. Possession of tools for picking a lock is a crime in most places if you're not a locksmith. Go ahead and ask a lawyer.
So if someone figures out a way to steal mail from your mailbox in a stealthy fashion and then uses that information to bankrupt you, what would your response be? It's really easy to walk up to a mailbox and take mail from it. How do I know? I take my mail from my mailbox every day. If someone else took my mail and it had a credit card bill or a bank statement or a letter from the DMV with a new driver's license or....
The point is that yeah there're systems out there that're easy to "hack". Living in a civilized society means that you don't hack those systems and punish people who do. Sure, we could all have our mailboxes made out of really thick steel with multiple security systems protecting them. Or we could just be decent people and not take other people's things.
I can figure out how the mail system works without stealing someone else's mail or encouraging others to steal mail. What's the societal benefit to publishing flaws in a system? If you find something, you can tell the company and hope they reward you. If the flaw could affect you, you can sue the company if they won't act on your revelation.
You're not being a good samaritan by publishing flaws to the world, you're being a dick who's trying to aid criminals. Frankly I've got no problem with locking up people who actively facilitate criminal activity. Thankfully these people were good enough to realize that shutting up was the good citizen thing to do. If only more people would realize that and if only they'd realize it without needing a lawyer to tell them to be a good citizen...
2 deaths per thousand cases does not make 4%. It makes 0.2%. That's a very different number. You're pretty silly to be correcting someone when you're willing to take one person's blind assertion over another's without any validation.
Actually, some American micro brews (e.g. Dogfish Head) give Belgian and German beers a run for their money. Don't judge a country's products by its mass-produced versions. Same goes for British beers. Hell, South Africa makes a very nice hard-cider (Savannah Dry). You just need to experience more things.
Things like what the court will need are legal advice. If you go into court with bad papers, you can have your suit thrown out (with or without leave to re-file), you can put the judge in a bad mood which can impact his/her willingness to help you through the rest of the suit, and if the documents are really messed up and some things that should be there get left out then you can end up being considered to have admitted as true whatever you forgot to deal with even if it's patently false and you can prove it and you can face sanctions. I'm not saying that legal secretaries can't dispense this advice but that the consumer can get seriously hurt in the long run by charlatans or by innocent wrong advice and have no recourse.
I would imagine that the contract you have with the provider would include a bit authorizing them to send the signals and alter the contents of the ROM. As such, if nothing else, by blocking that you're in breach of contract, though the damages would be negligible.
Apparently you haven't heard of laws about the possession of burglar's tools. These laws are very old and very much accepted. Having a hacked card and receiving satellite tv with it can easily land you in court on a possession of burglar's tools charge.
You can generally reverse engineer things, but if the thing you are reverse engineering is covered by a patent and the sale contract specifically said you cannot so do then you'd be in violation of patent law.
If you're using that ISO 7816 standard smart card programmer for a legitimate purpose (i.e. you work on SunRay systems or the like) you can respond to them that you have a legitimate purpose for having one of these and you ordered it for that purpose and they should not be expecting a check anytime soon. Should they try to bring you into court (doubtful) you'd win, absent a stack of hacked satellite cards in your house. If, on the other hand, you only have a satellite card and do not work on conditional access systems then once again you'll likely get hit for possession of burglar's tools (especially if your card is modified).
Because all of the above are pretty weak crimes and result in small damages even though the crimes are hard to detect and involve a large group of people, the legislature decided to adopt a law that would take these existing crimes and give stronger remedies against them in this circumstance. Whether they got it right will be seen, but the courts will deal with that as things come up.
The "poor defenseless corporations" aren't seeking protection from the "evil consumers" but rather from evil criminals. What's the difference between violating a law that's a few years old and violating a law that's a couple hundred years old? That's right, it's NOTHING. If you think these corporations are really so horribly bad, stop supporting them. And if enough other people thing there bad and do the same thing then those corporations will change their tune or sink. But don't start considering yourself some shepherd of the ignorant masses being horribly oppressed by evil laws. People know when they don't like something and if they don't like it enough they'll act. But the solution to something you don't like is not lawlessness, unless you'd honestly rather be in prison than live in a society that condones or forbids the act you think is wrong or right. Maybe you'll win and won't end up in jail, but don't bet your life on it until your willing to take the consequences.
Because there're laws about practicing law without a license. Whenever a legal secretary prepares a form, the attorney always has to review it and sign off on it before it can be sent out. It's designed for your protection, pretty much. How would you like to have a "legal secretary" advise you on something, take your money, and disappear before you figure out that their advice was bogus? You could argue that we'd certify them. But then they'd need training to meet the certification. And what do they need training in and what can they skip and how long should they go to school for etc etc etc. Eventually you're just talking about recreating formalized law education and the legal system as it is. At that point, why bother?
Congratulations, you've proved me correct. See, the way you get a patent is you file for one, spend a lot of money and time, and if there's nothing in the records available to the PTO that says the patent should not issue, then it issues. That does not mean the patent is therefore valid for its life. It just means that in the interest of efficiency and expense that the patent will issue. But someone needs to sue you for infringement before it goes anywhere. And once they do that, you can represent yourself if you wish and provide just one instance that the patented thing was done before the application was filed and that's that. I'm not sure if you get attorneys costs, but you very well might, if you win. Thanks for your time.
I was mistaken. It's at least $8140 to obtain a patent (assuming you don't get into refilings or modifications or the such). Sorry
Patents ARE legalized extortion. That's the point
on
NCR Patents the Internet
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Sorry, but I couldn't resist commenting. Patents are exactly that. Legalized extortion. If I get a patent on something, I can rightfully exclude you from using it for 20 years. Or I can let you use it for free. Or for money. And if you use it without me letting you I can sue you for lots of money and also get a court order saying you can't use it (which, if you break you'll be quite sorry).
What everyone forgets is that if anyone in the US was doing what your patent describes before you filed for the patent, then your patent is no good. And it doesn't cost billions of dollars to get a patent invalidated. First you need to get sued for violating a patent. Then you need to show some proof that at least one person was doing whatever the patent says before the filing date. Then you win. Given that it costs a minimum of $20k to get a patent, all this company has done is waste lots of money. If it ever tries to bring suit it'll spend even more money and it'll have nothing to show for it because these patents all seem to cover stuff that people've been doing with computers for a while. I doubt you will ever see a suit on any of those patents. It's like the guy who patented swinging. He spent at least $20k to prove that he doesn't understand the patent system. All I need is to bring in some witnesses that'll say they were swinging before Nov. 17th 2000 and he has officially wasted a lot of money. Patent examiners can only work with what they find in literature and trade journals etc. Courts can use anything you bring them.
The number they give is their rough (and probably not horribly inaccurate) cost of a successful recording. You know how flat screens were insanely expensive because of the amount of bad screens it took to get one good screen? Same thing with recording except there's no scientific process they can undertake to figure out how to choose the bands that will make a lot of money over bands that will lose money long run. Not that the recording industry is mistaken for the Red Cross by anyone, but at least complain for a reason based in facts.
Thanks for mod'ing me down, coward. My post was no more offtopic than the original post. This however is offtopic. Not that I care much. Are you one of the inconsiderate editors or just a gutless coward? Who knows, who cares. Good luck in life, chicken. I'll enjoy looking down at you from the top.
p.s. if you're going to be arrogant, be intelligent enough to do it well and don't be vengeful when someone smarter comes along and makes you look stupid. Replying to someone in kind is the civilized way. Replying to someone by falsely attacking their reputation is barbaric. Enjoy your hut.
Actually, slashdot is full of cowards who won't attach their names to what they say. Regardless, I was a techie and now I'm a law student and all I'm saying is that courtesy is good. You would be pissed off if a major corporation sent many thousands of people on to your property because they had a random suspicion that you might have a hundred gallons of oil under your land or a couple ounces of gold. And in the real world you could sue for trespassing and trespass to chattels among other things. Having the net overrun by arrogant fools who think they're better than everyone else is not the great way of doing things and was not the way of the original net. Read my reply to the other reply to my original comment if you're really interested in my argument. If however you're just interested in hearing yourself speak in your wonderfully superior voice then I have no time for you and you should expect no further debate or replies from me
Slashdot Mirror
http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?get doc+uscview+t33t36+1484+0++%28%29%20%20AND%20%28%2 835%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND%20%28USC%20w%2F 10%20%28271%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%2 0
Yes is the simple answer to the first question. Probably not is the answer to the second question. If the Segway is covered by patents and this guy is using their patented technology in developing it then he'd likely be liable for infringement under the above provision of the US Code. What damages there would be can be found in 35 USC 281-287. No this isn't legal advice. Talk to a lawyer before considering building this device as described in that you may run into legal trouble as well. He might also be liable for actively inducing others to infringe but I dunno about that. If the Segway is patented, then you can get a copy of the plans for it from the patent office. That's the deal with patents. You tell everyone how to make what you made and in return we'll allow you full rights to exclude others from making it for X years.
Just be glad they aren't looking to nail people with criminal charges. See: 17 USC 506 which refers to 18 USC 2319 which, in a simple summary, says that you can go to jail for up to three years (first copyright offense) or fined some amount of money (it's in another part of 18 USC and I don't want to find it) or both if you've shared music that ends up being worth $2,500 or more for the total number of copies shared. I dunno exactly how the language of this section is interpreted, but you could well end up in jail. And there's a decent argument for them seizing and destroying your computer as it'd be an instrument of copyright infringement if you were convicted. Who knows. Ask a lawyer.
Linux benefits greatly from strong copyright legislation as does all other Open Source/Free Software. The GPL and other such licenses are licenses to use copyrighted things in exchange for agreeing to follow the terms. There's no money involved which makes people think that copyright law isn't involved. But there clearly is a contract. You're just giving up something other than money in order to use linux. If you're a famous movie maker, you might make an agreement to use certain songs in a movie and prominently feature the bands who created them in ads in exchange for the right to use those songs. No money involved and you have the right to use those songs. If you could offer something substantial other than money to get a copy of music you like then maybe you could make a deal to get it. But it's a lot simpler to just use money as opposed to figuring out something else you could barter with to get the rights and negotiating a contract with the people who have the right to license the music.
Yes, there was music and inventions and the such before there were laws protecting them. The thing is that in order to encourage more music, more inventions, better music, better inventions, etc. the writers of the US Constitution decided that they'd offer an incentive of a limited monopoly to encourage people to create more. Given the pace of technological advance and the spread of music from being mostly found in the courts of the wealthy to being found everywhere, I'd say it was a pretty good idea.
And useful arts included literature originally. Not only manuals about how to do things, but literature that was purely for enjoyment as well. Congress has decided that music is a useful art so they included it in copyright law. I happen to think music is a useful art if for no other reason than I find that if I throw on some good tunes when I'm working on something I generally find myself getting into a groove and thereby being more productive. And some music just generally makes me happy. Which is pretty useful to me, if no one else.
Once you've accepted that it's useful, you next need to realize that the contradiction you've tried to point out is only in your own logic. If I write a song and it sucks then nobody will want it and that's that. But if someone does want the song they have no right to copy it without my permission. My permission might include paying me some money for it.
Next, though, someone will bring up the argument of how the artists are getting screwed because they only get (insert small amount of money) per CD. The problem with that argument is that the artists negotiated a contract with the record company that specified how much compensation they'd get. You aren't a part of their contractual relationship and thus have no right to assert fictional rights on behalf of the artists.
The ever popular response to this is that the artists are forced to sign bad contracts if they want to succeed. Two problems with that. First, assuming they were getting screwed, in their minds whatever provisions they didn't like were offset by other things they did like such that in the end they they signed the contract. Second, if the deal does turn out to be really bad for the artist, then they can break it and deal with damages or else try to claim that it was unconscionable. Yes, you can claim that a contract is unconscionable and even win, but only if it truly is and that's up to the judge to decide. It's a hard argument to make but contracts would be meaningless if it wasn't.
So to sum up, while a monopoly doesn't guarantee the right to earn a living from something if nobody wants it, that doesn't mean that you have a right to just take it. It only costs something like $10-20 to produce a pair of sneakers that costs $120. I don't want to pay $120 for those sneakers, and after all they only cost $10 to make anyway. So I can just take them right? And if the factory worker in Indonesia shows up I'll pay him/her the $10 and be done with it. Not wanting something and not wanting to pay the price asked for it are two different things. The former is fine. The latter is too, so long as you don't just take the thing without paying. People do have a right to make money on things that people want. If you don't want to pay $20 for a CD, then don't buy it. But taking it (or more to the point the music on it which is the reason people buy cds; no one sane would pay for a useless piece of plastic) without paying for it and saying that the artist is getting screwed so it's ok and you'd send the artist money if you could in some way is the same as me taking the sneakers and saying I'd pay the factory worker the money if I could. You'd call the latter stealing (I hope) and so the former should be flat admitted as stealing as well.
In general, yes. But there's a difference between a court having jurisdiction over a matter and a court having the ability to hale someone into court. All jurisdiction means (usually) is that the court is satisfied that someone in the court's zone of influence has been affected by someone else's action or has affected someone else by their own actions.
If the plaintiff and the defendant happen to reside in the same state (corporations reside both where their corporate papers are filed and where their principal place of business is) then generally absent a question of federal law ( 28 USC 1331 ) the federal court will kick it out to be dealt with in state courts. See the original post of mine for a more full explanation of the following: there's also jurisdiction in federal court when there's diversity of citizenship and the amount is above $75k.
But absent treaties for extradition and even sometimes despite such treaties, the only way to have a lawsuit in the US affect you if you live abroad is to come visit the US. Individual states in the US usually grant extradition to one another and various nations have treaties for extradition depending on the nature of the offense (usually criminal offenders will be extradited but you can get into situations where non-death penalty places will refuse to extradite to a death penalty place etc.).
All of this makes perfect sense to if you think about it. Bob lives in Brazil. He pisses off Jim in the US and costs Jim a lot of money. That person files a lawsuit and is able to serve Bob with notice of the lawsuit (persuant to FRCP 4(f); scroll down looking for f, the link is to FRCP 4). Bob refuses to answer therefore Bob loses (defaults). If Bob ever wants to visit the US it's going to be an expensive visit because he owes Jim whatever he lost and if Jim catches wind that Bob has come into the US then he can get law enforcement people to have a chat with Bob. I don't know exactly how it works from there, so you'll have to talk to a lawyer who deals in such things if you want the rest of the story, but if Bob never visits the US he's got nothing to worry about.
If you piss someone off, refuse to apologize or work the problem out in some way, and then later go to a party at that person's apartment building that he's also attending, doesn't it make sense he'd give you the cold shoulder and maybe make some snide remarks? It's the same idea. Just more expensive than hurt feelings from bad remarks.
I'm glad you took the time to misinform people about American law. Had you read the link, you would've noticed 28 USC 1332 was referenced (also known as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 1332). Here's a link to the code itself if you want it.
Basically, what the law says is that if one party is a resident of the state and the other is a resident of a foreign nation AND the damages claimed will be at least $75,000 then the Federal District Court for that state (or part of the state for larger states) has jurisdiction over the case.
Here they said they are residents of Boca Raton, FL, which is in the Southern District of Florida, SPAMHAUS et al are NOT in florida in any way, and they were going to claim damages of at least $75,000. They likely listed everyone and their cousins to make it perfectly clear that complete diversity of citizenship exists. If you don't have complete diversity of citizenship then the Federal Court will throw the case out because it's a State Court matter. It's a little more complex than that and IANAL. I am a law student but this IS NOT legal advice.
And for anyone who doesn't bother checking the above link to the USC, if the damages later end up being less than $75,000 then the plaintiff may not get costs and indeed might have to pay the costs so making a blind allegation that you meet the $75,000 mark can turn out to be expensive if a jury later awards you $1 and the judge levies the costs on you.
So next time you're going to make legal conjectures do at least attempt to do a little research.
The courts have their own pagination. And those numbers are the ones you use in citing a case for a legal document anyway.
already publishes a lot of official reporters. I believe Lexis publishes some as well. It's really not a big deal. There are no copyrights in court opinions (or they can't be exploited anyway; there's some case out there saying that). They're free to the public as far as I know. Lexis-Nexis and WestLaw both make their money adding additional content to opinions (e.g. headnotes, their own pagination). But they also do business publishing reporters.
You say they have a flaw and they sue you for libel or slander. You are absolutely allowed to show that what you said is true in court. Chances are the company will move for the record to be sealed so that your proof of the exploit will not be dispensed to the public at large. And there might well be questions about why you were poking around in the system trying to discover flaws which could lead to problems if you don't have any good answers. But assuming you can show a flaw, you should at least beat the libel/slander charge.
Wrong, sir. I direct you to 18 U.S.C. 1029 http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?get doc+uscview+t17t20+589+1++%28%29%20%20AND%20%28%28 18%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND%20%28USC%20w%2F1 0%20%281029%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%2 0 which clearly states that if someone defrauds any person(s) for an aggregate value of $1000 or more over the course of a year, said person is liable for very severe fines and prison time. That's just federal law, various states also have credit fraud laws. I suggest you check your facts before you start rambling off weird misconceptions. It took me 3 minutes to track down that law. There are many others that I will not spend time to find.
Again, not legal advice, just my opinion.
If you can figure out a way to show it without it being exploitable then I think you're in the clear. Beyond that it kinda becomes a question of how much you trust the people you're working with. Sharing a find with a few close friends and keeping it in the group leaves you, in a practical sense, in the clear. Whether it's legal I just plain don't know. If by peers you mean anyone out in the ether then I don't think there is a good way to do it.
It's hard to think up a really good analogy, but if you rent a movie and invite some friends over to watch it that's all good. If you rent a movie and share it with everyone online indiscriminately, that's not gonna fly.
Telling the company that you've found a flaw in their software is likely your best bet. Any company with good business sense would want to patch up an error in their software. Chances are they have some pretty good coders working for them so you'll have some peers to share it with. And ask them for credit in discovering it and discuss the possibility of sharing the general details once they've gotten a chance to create a patch and it's had time to propagate. You're best bet in any of this is to chat with a lawyer. Following the advice of a lawyer usually relieves you of a lot of liabilities should any problems arise.
Again, if you really need answers to these questions, talk to a lawyer. Find one who deals in copyrights if at all possible as that'll save you and him/her a lot of time. I think my answers above generally are in tune with the law as it is, but I can't really verify that. Good luck
What do you mean there's no incentive to fix them? How about when someone criminal breaks the system? Then Blackboard gets sued into oblivion because they knew about the problem and didn't do anything about it. I couldn't even begin to run down all the things they'd be sued under.
Person breaks system and steals coke. Coke figures this out and sues school. School calls cops to figure out who did it. School sues Blackboard for misrepresentation, fraud, breach of contract, negligence, and possibly a few other things as well. DA sues Blackboard for recklessly endangering the welfare of X,000 people (however many live on campus in buildings guarded by the cards). Trust me, they've got a lot of incentive.
I'm a law student, but this is NOT legal advice.
Assuming that Blackboard's security has a flaw, then the first amendment protects your right to say Blackboard's security system has a flaw in it.
The first amendment might protect your ability to talk about the flaw in general terms.
The first amendment does not protect your ability to instruct people about the precise details of the flaw and how to exploit it.
The difference? Saying there's a flaw is beneficial because then the company knows and can fix it. Saying how the flaw works and how to exploit it facilitates criminal activity.
Tell a kid that the kid who made fun of him is an idiot and someday he'll die lonely and maybe you'll have made him feel better.
Tell the kid that if he takes the gun on the table, points it at that other kid who made fun of him, and pulls the trigger that the other kid won't make fun of him anymore and you'll land yourself in jail.
In both instances you're talking about speech. See the difference?
And btw, picking a lock almost inherently involves tools. Possession of tools for picking a lock is a crime in most places if you're not a locksmith. Go ahead and ask a lawyer.
So if someone figures out a way to steal mail from your mailbox in a stealthy fashion and then uses that information to bankrupt you, what would your response be? It's really easy to walk up to a mailbox and take mail from it. How do I know? I take my mail from my mailbox every day. If someone else took my mail and it had a credit card bill or a bank statement or a letter from the DMV with a new driver's license or ... .
The point is that yeah there're systems out there that're easy to "hack". Living in a civilized society means that you don't hack those systems and punish people who do. Sure, we could all have our mailboxes made out of really thick steel with multiple security systems protecting them. Or we could just be decent people and not take other people's things.
I can figure out how the mail system works without stealing someone else's mail or encouraging others to steal mail. What's the societal benefit to publishing flaws in a system? If you find something, you can tell the company and hope they reward you. If the flaw could affect you, you can sue the company if they won't act on your revelation.
You're not being a good samaritan by publishing flaws to the world, you're being a dick who's trying to aid criminals. Frankly I've got no problem with locking up people who actively facilitate criminal activity. Thankfully these people were good enough to realize that shutting up was the good citizen thing to do. If only more people would realize that and if only they'd realize it without needing a lawyer to tell them to be a good citizen...
2 deaths per thousand cases does not make 4%. It makes 0.2%. That's a very different number. You're pretty silly to be correcting someone when you're willing to take one person's blind assertion over another's without any validation.
Actually, some American micro brews (e.g. Dogfish Head) give Belgian and German beers a run for their money. Don't judge a country's products by its mass-produced versions. Same goes for British beers. Hell, South Africa makes a very nice hard-cider (Savannah Dry). You just need to experience more things.
Things like what the court will need are legal advice. If you go into court with bad papers, you can have your suit thrown out (with or without leave to re-file), you can put the judge in a bad mood which can impact his/her willingness to help you through the rest of the suit, and if the documents are really messed up and some things that should be there get left out then you can end up being considered to have admitted as true whatever you forgot to deal with even if it's patently false and you can prove it and you can face sanctions. I'm not saying that legal secretaries can't dispense this advice but that the consumer can get seriously hurt in the long run by charlatans or by innocent wrong advice and have no recourse.
I would imagine that the contract you have with the provider would include a bit authorizing them to send the signals and alter the contents of the ROM. As such, if nothing else, by blocking that you're in breach of contract, though the damages would be negligible.
Apparently you haven't heard of laws about the possession of burglar's tools. These laws are very old and very much accepted. Having a hacked card and receiving satellite tv with it can easily land you in court on a possession of burglar's tools charge.
You can generally reverse engineer things, but if the thing you are reverse engineering is covered by a patent and the sale contract specifically said you cannot so do then you'd be in violation of patent law.
If you're using that ISO 7816 standard smart card programmer for a legitimate purpose (i.e. you work on SunRay systems or the like) you can respond to them that you have a legitimate purpose for having one of these and you ordered it for that purpose and they should not be expecting a check anytime soon. Should they try to bring you into court (doubtful) you'd win, absent a stack of hacked satellite cards in your house. If, on the other hand, you only have a satellite card and do not work on conditional access systems then once again you'll likely get hit for possession of burglar's tools (especially if your card is modified).
Because all of the above are pretty weak crimes and result in small damages even though the crimes are hard to detect and involve a large group of people, the legislature decided to adopt a law that would take these existing crimes and give stronger remedies against them in this circumstance. Whether they got it right will be seen, but the courts will deal with that as things come up.
The "poor defenseless corporations" aren't seeking protection from the "evil consumers" but rather from evil criminals. What's the difference between violating a law that's a few years old and violating a law that's a couple hundred years old? That's right, it's NOTHING. If you think these corporations are really so horribly bad, stop supporting them. And if enough other people thing there bad and do the same thing then those corporations will change their tune or sink. But don't start considering yourself some shepherd of the ignorant masses being horribly oppressed by evil laws. People know when they don't like something and if they don't like it enough they'll act. But the solution to something you don't like is not lawlessness, unless you'd honestly rather be in prison than live in a society that condones or forbids the act you think is wrong or right. Maybe you'll win and won't end up in jail, but don't bet your life on it until your willing to take the consequences.
Because there're laws about practicing law without a license. Whenever a legal secretary prepares a form, the attorney always has to review it and sign off on it before it can be sent out. It's designed for your protection, pretty much. How would you like to have a "legal secretary" advise you on something, take your money, and disappear before you figure out that their advice was bogus? You could argue that we'd certify them. But then they'd need training to meet the certification. And what do they need training in and what can they skip and how long should they go to school for etc etc etc. Eventually you're just talking about recreating formalized law education and the legal system as it is. At that point, why bother?
Congratulations, you've proved me correct. See, the way you get a patent is you file for one, spend a lot of money and time, and if there's nothing in the records available to the PTO that says the patent should not issue, then it issues. That does not mean the patent is therefore valid for its life. It just means that in the interest of efficiency and expense that the patent will issue. But someone needs to sue you for infringement before it goes anywhere. And once they do that, you can represent yourself if you wish and provide just one instance that the patented thing was done before the application was filed and that's that. I'm not sure if you get attorneys costs, but you very well might, if you win. Thanks for your time.
I was mistaken. It's at least $8140 to obtain a patent (assuming you don't get into refilings or modifications or the such). Sorry
What everyone forgets is that if anyone in the US was doing what your patent describes before you filed for the patent, then your patent is no good. And it doesn't cost billions of dollars to get a patent invalidated. First you need to get sued for violating a patent. Then you need to show some proof that at least one person was doing whatever the patent says before the filing date. Then you win. Given that it costs a minimum of $20k to get a patent, all this company has done is waste lots of money. If it ever tries to bring suit it'll spend even more money and it'll have nothing to show for it because these patents all seem to cover stuff that people've been doing with computers for a while. I doubt you will ever see a suit on any of those patents. It's like the guy who patented swinging. He spent at least $20k to prove that he doesn't understand the patent system. All I need is to bring in some witnesses that'll say they were swinging before Nov. 17th 2000 and he has officially wasted a lot of money. Patent examiners can only work with what they find in literature and trade journals etc. Courts can use anything you bring them.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='6368227'.WKU.&OS=PN/6368227&RS=P N/6368227
The number they give is their rough (and probably not horribly inaccurate) cost of a successful recording. You know how flat screens were insanely expensive because of the amount of bad screens it took to get one good screen? Same thing with recording except there's no scientific process they can undertake to figure out how to choose the bands that will make a lot of money over bands that will lose money long run. Not that the recording industry is mistaken for the Red Cross by anyone, but at least complain for a reason based in facts.
Thanks for mod'ing me down, coward. My post was no more offtopic than the original post. This however is offtopic. Not that I care much. Are you one of the inconsiderate editors or just a gutless coward? Who knows, who cares. Good luck in life, chicken. I'll enjoy looking down at you from the top.
p.s. if you're going to be arrogant, be intelligent enough to do it well and don't be vengeful when someone smarter comes along and makes you look stupid. Replying to someone in kind is the civilized way. Replying to someone by falsely attacking their reputation is barbaric. Enjoy your hut.
Actually, slashdot is full of cowards who won't attach their names to what they say. Regardless, I was a techie and now I'm a law student and all I'm saying is that courtesy is good. You would be pissed off if a major corporation sent many thousands of people on to your property because they had a random suspicion that you might have a hundred gallons of oil under your land or a couple ounces of gold. And in the real world you could sue for trespassing and trespass to chattels among other things. Having the net overrun by arrogant fools who think they're better than everyone else is not the great way of doing things and was not the way of the original net. Read my reply to the other reply to my original comment if you're really interested in my argument. If however you're just interested in hearing yourself speak in your wonderfully superior voice then I have no time for you and you should expect no further debate or replies from me