This is old news and effectively a dupe. More importantly, Slashdot announced that the two companies made up with Vonage paying the royalty. This nullifies the injunction, as the patent holder has that authority. I mean, the injunction is for the holder's benefit, and can be waived. In this case, it has because of licensing. Guess the editors weren't paying attention.
"However, if you do successfully avoid a subpoena, you'll just wind up with a court summons, or a warrant."
This is Federal Court, right? IIRC, a subpoena is only effective in the forum state, or within 100 miles of a Court in that forum state if you are not in that state. For example, the Western District of Arkansas Federal Court is in Fort Smith, which borders Oklahoma! (where the wind comes sweeping across the plains). So, you could be in Sallisaw, OK and still be subpoenaed. So, if she were in Alaska SCO could go pound sand.
"It is effective to speak to a diagram, because it presents information in a different form. but it is not effective to speak the same words that are written, because it is putting too much load on the mind and decreases your ability to understand what is being presented."[1]
But, we already knew that. How many of us complain when the presentation speaker simply reads the power point slides to us? The best practice is to give short, simple phrases as cues that helps organize the listener's understanding of the presentation, not as a cue card.
"it converts code written in language foo into language bar."
It reads like what I've seen done for years: having a program (e.g. PHP-based) that produces javascript or calls to javascript. Heck, I wrote something like that as recently as 2005. "Compile" could be as simple as building an array of javascript function calls that are then embedded into a web page.
That said, another case of poor judgment of the USPTO. Last summer I took a class in Patent Law at my law school. The professor showed a patent for a pocket handkerchief folded into a pocket square inserted into the left breast pocket of a suit coat. It was submitted in 2001 and granted that year. Of course, pocket squares have been around for decades, and somebody brought that to the attention of the USPTO, who went back and filled a retraction. The original patent remains, but a follow-on rejects all the claims. I think the same should be done here.
Truth be told, they need fewer government and more computer geeks working in the computer group of the USPTO, methinks.
SCOTUS holding is based on its interpretation of the Sherman AT Act. So, Congress has the actual authority here, and SCOTUS fills in the blanks where it thinks necessary. If SCOTUS overturns "the venerable Dr. Miles rule," then Congress need only amend Sherman to re-enable that rule. Heck, even with Dr. Miles in place, Congress could legislate it out of existence.
What is wrong here is that people forget that SCOTUS is not the only branch capable of legislation. Oh, wait, SCOTUS isn't supposed to legislate; it is supposed to interpret. SCOTUS is also not the only branch obliged to protect your Constitutional rights---there are some issues which should not even be subject to judicial review, but that other branches have authority. For example, SCOTUS can't bind us to international treaties: only the President can negotiate and the Senate confirm treaties. This is a reason why SCOTUS applying foreign law is unconstitutional. SCOTUS can't write legislation. However, Congress has allowed SCOTUS to do the equivalent; which protects Congress from the social/political backlash---they can just blame a life-tenured body.
The truth is, Congress needs to grow balls. If SCOTUS reverses Dr. Miles, Congress needs to legislate it.
Anonymous Coward has obviously misplaced his reply. The approach he uses is unethical and unprofessional as explained. The first step to claiming fees, as he rightly claims, is to have a validly filed copyright. When an infringer is detected, the appropriate step is to C&D to get the infringer to stop, then pursue for renumeration when infringer is recalcitrant. Just because he profits by extorting infringers does not mean it is the appropriate approach.
Isn't it a bit convenient that there was a problem (how did they survive), a speculation (ugh, they digged holes), and sudden, subsequent discovery (hey, here are the burrowing buggers, or rather, digging dinosaurs).
"One of her clients, for whom I recently designed a site, just received a $25,000 invoice from a law firm in London representing Corbis, who claimed their content was on the client's site."
First, I'm worried that a UK client was billed in dollars by a UK law firm.
Second, I'm not schooled on UK law, but in US law, claiming attorney's fees is not the first thing you do. The first step is to C&D the infringer. Anything else is heavy handed and requires contentious court action. This is similar to the recent/. article where the attorney posted the NFL blurb and it was removed: a C&D was sent to YouTube. The C&D allows the infringer to show the appropriate excuse (e.g. fair use, parody).
Third, how could a UK firm bill that much to send a letter to your client? At least in U.S. law, criminal infringing may result in reasonable attorney's fees. Twenty-five thousand is not reasonable for an initial letter.
So, your client should see a lawyer to fix the problem. Anything else is like bringing a plastic butter knife to a gun fight.
However, since you are the cause for the infringing, it is possible for your client to drag you in.
However, I recommend you put some tag in the filename for these infringing images. Next time you ship a web site, you can filter out those images.
'This was a deliberate decision made by congress, aimed at allowing businesses like YouTube to have a sane set of rules to follow. If Viacom don't like it they should convince congress to change it's mind. They don't think they can so they're asking the courts to "interprate" the law until it says what they want.'
Just to chime in with you. The Constitution gives Congress sole authority to say what is a copyright infringement. SCOTUS has judicial authority under the Constitution, but that authority itself has Constitutional limits. This is the old Political Question Doctrine which essentially bars SCOTUS from reviewing matters explicitly granted by the Constitution to another Branch, or to the States. A great example of this is that SCOTUS cannot say that "life of the author +95 years" (or as I like to call it, the life of Mickey Mouse) is a violation of the Constitution because Congress gets to make that call. To reign in Congress requires the People to do their Constitutional duty an elect fresh meat.
Here is another example where the Court should not be allowed to question Congress' authority. DCMA has a provision that requires three clearly defined criteria for the safe harbor provision. One is to set a policy saying "by using this service you promise not to infringe." The second is to have a compliance officer who has the sole task of working with copyright holders to resolve disputes. The third is to remove copyrighted material when prompted by the copyright holder.
Now, this is a specific instance thing. Viacom can't say, "you've got infringing videos on your server." They have to show _which_ videos are infringing. If there are tens of thousands of such videos, Viacom has to show each one.
"If the contract were declared unenforceable, how did the employer have a legal right to enforce the "ten percent" rule?"
The contract would not be unenforceable, only the non-compete provisions. The provision enforcing the ten-percent rule is a separate contract provision that is only triggered if the non-compete provision fails. The rational is that the ten-percent salary is paid to the employee based on the enforceability of the non-compete provision; sort of like insurance. In the event the non-compete is unenforceable, the employee is no longer entitled to that ten-percent of his salary and must compensate the employer for the loss.
Basically, it's like saying "we will pay you USD 90,000. However, we will also compensate you USD 10,000 if you agree to the non-compete provision. If the provision is non-enforceable, naturally you'll owe use for that extra compensation."
Contracts are generally a private matter---sometimes called private laws between parties. The only way such a non-compete provision would be rendered non-enforceable is if one of the parties contests its enforceability in court. Naturally, a non-compete is to the employer's advantage; so he will rarely contest it. The employee is left with the option to contest. Since he agreed to the compensation for the non-compete, if he later objects to the non-compete then he, out of fundamental fairness, must return the money he obtained for the non-compete. Courts tend to frown on getting money for nothing (or your chicks for free). When I say fundamental fairness, then I start delving into matters of equity, which generally are not based on law but fairness.
"Plus, (IANAL) I've heard that those sorts of contracts are mostly unenforceable."
I am a recent law school graduate who did not go to law school to be a lawyer. However, I did pay attention in Employment law when non-compete clauses were discussed. Basically, the enforceability of a non-compete is based on how well it is written and whether the state's employment law thinks the terms of the non-compete are reasonable. For example, in Arkansas a non-compete can say that you cannot work for a competitor for six months within thirty or fifty miles of the previous employer and be perfectly legit. However, you can't impose a statewide ban on work for ten years---that's absurd.
In some states, courts will "blue-pencil" amend the non-compete to make unreasonable, unenforceable clauses reasonable and enforceable. Some other states (e.g. Arkansas) will totally void the non-compete if any clause is unenforceable. This is a state-specific issue.
From what I gather, this is a one-year non-compete in the same city. That is probably reasonable in the forum state where this fellow is from. He should contact an employment lawyer and ask about the enforceability rather than ask Slashdot.
Never sign a legal document unless you understand everything being imposed by it. The "sign and forget" can bite you in the tail. Here's an amusing little antidote that should emphasize my point:
I know an employment attorney which has gotten around this "reasonableness" by setting up the contract just right. The contract in question stated that ten percent of the employee's salary had to be refunded to the employer if he violated the non-compete or if the non-compete were declared unenforceable in a court of law. The employee signed a contract stating he would not work for two years for a competitor, and after twenty years decided to jump ship. When the employee's attorney contacted this attorney stating that he was going to court to invalidate the clause, the employer's attorney said "sure, we'll stipulate to that; but your client will have to pay two-years salary (10 percent times twenty) when that happens---read the contract." The suit was dropped and the employee was screwed. He could not afford to pay the penalty, the gaining employer refused to buy him out, and he was consequently unemployable for two years. The employment law attorney still laughs when he tells this story.
"I love that you're smarter than thousands of climate scientists, essentially every relevant scientific organisation, and the 154 nations who had to unanimously sign off on the IPCC's conclusion that there's a 90% certainty that human activity is causing warming at least in part. When's the Nobel being awarded?"
You got me to laugh here. First, 154 nations are right so we must be wrong. Argumentum ad populum.[1] I daresay most of these nations also do not support women's rights or modern democracy. Therefore, we should do likewise? Most people eat meat, so should vegans be forced to eat beef? By your logic, they should. My teen-aged son gives this argument all the time, too, but he's starting to realize just how idiotic it sounds.
Second, 154 countries "unanimously signed." Well, if you don't sign, what is that? How can you non-unanimously sign? Can you sign a petition to say you think you might agree but aren't sure? There are, what, 250+ countries in the world. So, if you're looking at a total national head count, I think you only have about 60%; there goes unanimous. But, I love that you said "had to sign," which is to suggest that refusal to sign would result in a cut to UN aid. That's how you build a consensus.
Third ". . . causing warming at least in part." A Fourth of July Barbecue with baked beans contributes to atmospheric methane. Methane is a greenhouse gas. Therefore, there is some partial contribution. But "cause" is a little hard to prove. Fortunately, the document contains so many weasel words as to cause a lawyer to blush. The best part is that they only have to believe ninety percent. That gives them ten percent to say "or not."
"To add to this, I'd like to point out that global warming deniers are quick to dismiss 650,000 years of data about earth's temperature as not being representative of the facts, but they jump on 3 years of data (and data confined to a local area and not the whole planet) as evidence against global warming, solely because they think it supports their opinion. If they were serious about science, they would apply the same rigour to the arguments they agree with as to the arguments they disagree with."
I think the point is this. First, those "deniers" are only denying that man is the cause of global warming. The reverse point is that if man is not the cause then there is little that he can realistically do to stop it. I remember being told by fear-mongering scientists as a child that we would be out of coal and petroleum by 2010 and uranium by the mid-1990s. This global warming flare up smells much like then. Cry wolf too often, who will listen?
Second, the data on Mars undermines the current scientific groupthink about man causing global warming on Earth as it is an independent data point. Think of this as a placebo. If Mars had no climate change and Earth did, it would serve to dismiss claims that the Sun---that big fusion reactor out there---is a major contributer to global warming. Since data suggests that Mars is experiencing similar warming (and other planets based on another poster's links), then it calls into doubt the groupthink that man is the cause. It suggests the Sun is a big contributer, which is an assertion made by those who deny-that-man-causes-global-warming.
My own observation is that there is a logical fallacy. When deniers deny global warming, they refute man's role in global warming. I think both sides agree the warming is occurring---part of the natural cycle of the Earth's pattern. There was an ice age, after all. We've obviously warmed up quite a bit since then. I doubt cave men had a significant impact on climate then to be the culprit. But, I digress. Those who support the notion of man-made global warming respond by claiming that the denial extends to the existence of warming period.
Another interesting point is by calling them 'deniers,' there is an implication that they refuse to accept the truth. Sort of like when the Federalists labeled themselves as Federalists and the other side as Anti-Federalists; when the Anti-Federalists were really federalists as opposed to nationalists.
Once, science insisted that the Sun and planets orbited the Earth and those who offered an alternative were hunted. There are other similar scientific misconceptions that had to be beaten out by time. I think man-made global warming is merely 21st Century Earth-centric logic.
I myself have also wondered why there's more meltage on Mars. It seems the two planets (America, er, Earth and Mars) are both experiencing a similar warming trend. If only we could see something that the two share in common.
"Probably because Iran ignores the Geneva Conventions with regard to prisoners...no..US does that too..."
As somebody fully versed in the GC as it regards to prisoners of war, I can tell you are lacking a clue. Terrorists are not protected by GC's rules on prisoners of war. To qualify, they have to meet four criteria, of which clandestine terrorist organizations typically fulfill zero. Don't believe everything the media tell you to.
This is not the first time somebody has used these terms involving Barak Usama Obama. BTW, if elected, he would not be the first African-American President. He's stated he's strictly African---although born in the U.S., so what gives. Clinton claimed to be the first AA President, although critics of Theodore Roosevelt called him the first Black President after allowing B. Washington to dine with him at the White House.
Hillary Clinton. Notice she's the only Democrat candidate avoiding her last name? Even she realizes that right now it's more of a liability.
"I wonder how he arrives at that? If the program already existed, and Vista didn't, and MS wrote Vista with backward compatibility in mind (did they?) it's hardly the app vendor's fault. But even if MS didn't care about backward compatibility, that's not the app vendor's fault. They can't write programs to an OS that hasn't been written! So this was just a goofy statement."
Here's how it's the vendor's fault. You see, Microsoft has been working on Vista for years now. They've been constantly changing, releasing betas, refining, etc. The vendors failed to properly track a moving target. I mean, it's one thing if the target is just shifting, but another thing altogether when your _competitor_ is moving the target.
It sounds like this guy would prefer the Netscape 4.71 route of software engineering. Guess at what the specs and requirements will be, then start coding. Don't worry if the customer decides on a totally different solution.
"The model could solve the mystery of why our early universe was surprisingly well ordered."
And to think, Christianity already has the answer: "In the Beginning, God created [the Universe]." It's very unsurprisingly well ordered when one guy codes the whole thing.
First, threatening to sue can be grounds for a law suit. It's harassment. On top of that, using the courts to harass is abuse of process---which could get their attorney disbarred if he does so with full knowledge of what's going on. Could be and would be are two things. I mean, this isn't like a prosecuting attorney accusing a bunch of lacrosse jocks of gang raping a stripper to get himself re-elected.
Second, they escorted you out of the building when you were still within your two-week gratis. I think that could be construed as assenting to your quiting. At the very least, they may have thought they were firing you. Obviously, they did not need your services so much that they tried to counter-offer. So, it would be hard for them to say you were essential to their operations.
Third, you're not taking any clients with you, nor taking any company documentation. An employee has a duty of loyalty so long as they are employed, and that duty can extend to the new employment when the employee "steals" something from the former company (e.g. client, trade secrets) to benefit the new one. You are obliged to treat the former employer with some loyalty.
Fourth, your new company didn't do anything illegal in hiring you, so there's no grounds for a law suit from your former company. This plays into my first point---if the former sues the new because of you, then they're trying to harass the company to fire you; or just generally harassing you.
Of course, when I make blanket statements about loyalty and legality, I'm assuming that you've done nothing disloyal or illegal in the process.
One of the reasons a nation like Estonia can improve so much is because they were starting with almost a clean slate. The U.S. has over 100 years of telephone infrastructure _and_ industrial entrenchment to combat. A couple years back, the FCC was considering allowing broadband over powerline, IIRC. It decided not to go that route, er, because it would have pretty much nullified the telephone and cable industries.
Just so I understand your "insightful" comment. You're advocating silencing opposition to your point of view, right? How very First Amendment of you. Let me guess, you're a Democrat?
"doesn't survive the plain language of the 1976 Act"
I would agree with you. However, many things held to be "The Law" by judges fails to survive the plain language of a statute. My personal favorite of the moment is Amend. 14 sec. 5, which plainly gives Congress (not the Court) authority to enforce the 14th Amendment.
You think you're kidding. My law school sent an email to faculty stating that any document authored on its network is property of the school. Try telling a law professor that his countless hours of research and writing are not his. Apparently, the law school did not take its own IP course where the professor explained the exception for professors.
His intimate knowledge of how-they-do-it should not bear at all on this case. This is essentially an Employment Law issue first, and IP second. The key question is whether the Trooper authored the software _within the scope of employment_. If found to be within the scope, then the software belongs to the state. If not, then he retains copyright. The DOT attorney's claim of a loaned computer (specifically) to author the software is made to bolster a scope of employment claim; just as Meredith's claim that he spent countless hours _off-duty_ to counter.
For those who are authoring software _not_ within scope of employment, I offer this suggestion: keep a journal of time spent on a personal project just as you would if for employment. Use a bound journal book and track your time and progress. This is useful for two reasons. First, it helps you learn from your progress. It also helps support your claim of "on-my-own" effort. Also, use your own resources---never your employer's or client's. Every little bit you borrow increases the likelihood of a valid scope claim.
Slashdot Mirror
This is old news and effectively a dupe. More importantly, Slashdot announced that the two companies made up with Vonage paying the royalty. This nullifies the injunction, as the patent holder has that authority. I mean, the injunction is for the holder's benefit, and can be waived. In this case, it has because of licensing. Guess the editors weren't paying attention.
"However, if you do successfully avoid a subpoena, you'll just wind up with a court summons, or a warrant."
This is Federal Court, right? IIRC, a subpoena is only effective in the forum state, or within 100 miles of a Court in that forum state if you are not in that state. For example, the Western District of Arkansas Federal Court is in Fort Smith, which borders Oklahoma! (where the wind comes sweeping across the plains). So, you could be in Sallisaw, OK and still be subpoenaed. So, if she were in Alaska SCO could go pound sand.
"It is effective to speak to a diagram, because it presents information in a different form. but it is not effective to speak the same words that are written, because it is putting too much load on the mind and decreases your ability to understand what is being presented."[1]
2 40499.html
But, we already knew that. How many of us complain when the presentation speaker simply reads the power point slides to us? The best practice is to give short, simple phrases as cues that helps organize the listener's understanding of the presentation, not as a cue card.
[1]: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/04/03/1175366
"it converts code written in language foo into language bar."
It reads like what I've seen done for years: having a program (e.g. PHP-based) that produces javascript or calls to javascript. Heck, I wrote something like that as recently as 2005. "Compile" could be as simple as building an array of javascript function calls that are then embedded into a web page.
That said, another case of poor judgment of the USPTO. Last summer I took a class in Patent Law at my law school. The professor showed a patent for a pocket handkerchief folded into a pocket square inserted into the left breast pocket of a suit coat. It was submitted in 2001 and granted that year. Of course, pocket squares have been around for decades, and somebody brought that to the attention of the USPTO, who went back and filled a retraction. The original patent remains, but a follow-on rejects all the claims. I think the same should be done here.
Truth be told, they need fewer government and more computer geeks working in the computer group of the USPTO, methinks.
SCOTUS holding is based on its interpretation of the Sherman AT Act. So, Congress has the actual authority here, and SCOTUS fills in the blanks where it thinks necessary. If SCOTUS overturns "the venerable Dr. Miles rule," then Congress need only amend Sherman to re-enable that rule. Heck, even with Dr. Miles in place, Congress could legislate it out of existence.
What is wrong here is that people forget that SCOTUS is not the only branch capable of legislation. Oh, wait, SCOTUS isn't supposed to legislate; it is supposed to interpret. SCOTUS is also not the only branch obliged to protect your Constitutional rights---there are some issues which should not even be subject to judicial review, but that other branches have authority. For example, SCOTUS can't bind us to international treaties: only the President can negotiate and the Senate confirm treaties. This is a reason why SCOTUS applying foreign law is unconstitutional. SCOTUS can't write legislation. However, Congress has allowed SCOTUS to do the equivalent; which protects Congress from the social/political backlash---they can just blame a life-tenured body.
The truth is, Congress needs to grow balls. If SCOTUS reverses Dr. Miles, Congress needs to legislate it.
Anonymous Coward has obviously misplaced his reply. The approach he uses is unethical and unprofessional as explained. The first step to claiming fees, as he rightly claims, is to have a validly filed copyright. When an infringer is detected, the appropriate step is to C&D to get the infringer to stop, then pursue for renumeration when infringer is recalcitrant. Just because he profits by extorting infringers does not mean it is the appropriate approach.
I have a very strict rule against infringement.
Isn't it a bit convenient that there was a problem (how did they survive), a speculation (ugh, they digged holes), and sudden, subsequent discovery (hey, here are the burrowing buggers, or rather, digging dinosaurs).
"One of her clients, for whom I recently designed a site, just received a $25,000 invoice from a law firm in London representing Corbis, who claimed their content was on the client's site."
/. article where the attorney posted the NFL blurb and it was removed: a C&D was sent to YouTube. The C&D allows the infringer to show the appropriate excuse (e.g. fair use, parody).
First, I'm worried that a UK client was billed in dollars by a UK law firm.
Second, I'm not schooled on UK law, but in US law, claiming attorney's fees is not the first thing you do. The first step is to C&D the infringer. Anything else is heavy handed and requires contentious court action. This is similar to the recent
Third, how could a UK firm bill that much to send a letter to your client? At least in U.S. law, criminal infringing may result in reasonable attorney's fees. Twenty-five thousand is not reasonable for an initial letter.
So, your client should see a lawyer to fix the problem. Anything else is like bringing a plastic butter knife to a gun fight.
However, since you are the cause for the infringing, it is possible for your client to drag you in.
However, I recommend you put some tag in the filename for these infringing images. Next time you ship a web site, you can filter out those images.
Personally, I'm holding out for Web 4.79.
'This was a deliberate decision made by congress, aimed at allowing businesses like YouTube to have a sane set of rules to follow. If Viacom don't like it they should convince congress to change it's mind. They don't think they can so they're asking the courts to "interprate" the law until it says what they want.'
Just to chime in with you. The Constitution gives Congress sole authority to say what is a copyright infringement. SCOTUS has judicial authority under the Constitution, but that authority itself has Constitutional limits. This is the old Political Question Doctrine which essentially bars SCOTUS from reviewing matters explicitly granted by the Constitution to another Branch, or to the States. A great example of this is that SCOTUS cannot say that "life of the author +95 years" (or as I like to call it, the life of Mickey Mouse) is a violation of the Constitution because Congress gets to make that call. To reign in Congress requires the People to do their Constitutional duty an elect fresh meat.
Here is another example where the Court should not be allowed to question Congress' authority. DCMA has a provision that requires three clearly defined criteria for the safe harbor provision. One is to set a policy saying "by using this service you promise not to infringe." The second is to have a compliance officer who has the sole task of working with copyright holders to resolve disputes. The third is to remove copyrighted material when prompted by the copyright holder.
Now, this is a specific instance thing. Viacom can't say, "you've got infringing videos on your server." They have to show _which_ videos are infringing. If there are tens of thousands of such videos, Viacom has to show each one.
"If the contract were declared unenforceable, how did the employer have a legal right to enforce the "ten percent" rule?"
The contract would not be unenforceable, only the non-compete provisions. The provision enforcing the ten-percent rule is a separate contract provision that is only triggered if the non-compete provision fails. The rational is that the ten-percent salary is paid to the employee based on the enforceability of the non-compete provision; sort of like insurance. In the event the non-compete is unenforceable, the employee is no longer entitled to that ten-percent of his salary and must compensate the employer for the loss.
Basically, it's like saying "we will pay you USD 90,000. However, we will also compensate you USD 10,000 if you agree to the non-compete provision. If the provision is non-enforceable, naturally you'll owe use for that extra compensation."
Contracts are generally a private matter---sometimes called private laws between parties. The only way such a non-compete provision would be rendered non-enforceable is if one of the parties contests its enforceability in court. Naturally, a non-compete is to the employer's advantage; so he will rarely contest it. The employee is left with the option to contest. Since he agreed to the compensation for the non-compete, if he later objects to the non-compete then he, out of fundamental fairness, must return the money he obtained for the non-compete. Courts tend to frown on getting money for nothing (or your chicks for free). When I say fundamental fairness, then I start delving into matters of equity, which generally are not based on law but fairness.
"Plus, (IANAL) I've heard that those sorts of contracts are mostly unenforceable."
I am a recent law school graduate who did not go to law school to be a lawyer. However, I did pay attention in Employment law when non-compete clauses were discussed. Basically, the enforceability of a non-compete is based on how well it is written and whether the state's employment law thinks the terms of the non-compete are reasonable. For example, in Arkansas a non-compete can say that you cannot work for a competitor for six months within thirty or fifty miles of the previous employer and be perfectly legit. However, you can't impose a statewide ban on work for ten years---that's absurd.
In some states, courts will "blue-pencil" amend the non-compete to make unreasonable, unenforceable clauses reasonable and enforceable. Some other states (e.g. Arkansas) will totally void the non-compete if any clause is unenforceable. This is a state-specific issue.
From what I gather, this is a one-year non-compete in the same city. That is probably reasonable in the forum state where this fellow is from. He should contact an employment lawyer and ask about the enforceability rather than ask Slashdot.
Never sign a legal document unless you understand everything being imposed by it. The "sign and forget" can bite you in the tail. Here's an amusing little antidote that should emphasize my point:
I know an employment attorney which has gotten around this "reasonableness" by setting up the contract just right. The contract in question stated that ten percent of the employee's salary had to be refunded to the employer if he violated the non-compete or if the non-compete were declared unenforceable in a court of law. The employee signed a contract stating he would not work for two years for a competitor, and after twenty years decided to jump ship. When the employee's attorney contacted this attorney stating that he was going to court to invalidate the clause, the employer's attorney said "sure, we'll stipulate to that; but your client will have to pay two-years salary (10 percent times twenty) when that happens---read the contract." The suit was dropped and the employee was screwed. He could not afford to pay the penalty, the gaining employer refused to buy him out, and he was consequently unemployable for two years. The employment law attorney still laughs when he tells this story.
Read your damn contracts.
"I love that you're smarter than thousands of climate scientists, essentially every relevant scientific organisation, and the 154 nations who had to unanimously sign off on the IPCC's conclusion that there's a 90% certainty that human activity is causing warming at least in part. When's the Nobel being awarded?"
m
You got me to laugh here. First, 154 nations are right so we must be wrong. Argumentum ad populum.[1] I daresay most of these nations also do not support women's rights or modern democracy. Therefore, we should do likewise? Most people eat meat, so should vegans be forced to eat beef? By your logic, they should. My teen-aged son gives this argument all the time, too, but he's starting to realize just how idiotic it sounds.
Second, 154 countries "unanimously signed." Well, if you don't sign, what is that? How can you non-unanimously sign? Can you sign a petition to say you think you might agree but aren't sure? There are, what, 250+ countries in the world. So, if you're looking at a total national head count, I think you only have about 60%; there goes unanimous. But, I love that you said "had to sign," which is to suggest that refusal to sign would result in a cut to UN aid. That's how you build a consensus.
Third ". . . causing warming at least in part." A Fourth of July Barbecue with baked beans contributes to atmospheric methane. Methane is a greenhouse gas. Therefore, there is some partial contribution. But "cause" is a little hard to prove. Fortunately, the document contains so many weasel words as to cause a lawyer to blush. The best part is that they only have to believe ninety percent. That gives them ten percent to say "or not."
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populu
"To add to this, I'd like to point out that global warming deniers are quick to dismiss 650,000 years of data about earth's temperature as not being representative of the facts, but they jump on 3 years of data (and data confined to a local area and not the whole planet) as evidence against global warming, solely because they think it supports their opinion. If they were serious about science, they would apply the same rigour to the arguments they agree with as to the arguments they disagree with."
I think the point is this. First, those "deniers" are only denying that man is the cause of global warming. The reverse point is that if man is not the cause then there is little that he can realistically do to stop it. I remember being told by fear-mongering scientists as a child that we would be out of coal and petroleum by 2010 and uranium by the mid-1990s. This global warming flare up smells much like then. Cry wolf too often, who will listen?
Second, the data on Mars undermines the current scientific groupthink about man causing global warming on Earth as it is an independent data point. Think of this as a placebo. If Mars had no climate change and Earth did, it would serve to dismiss claims that the Sun---that big fusion reactor out there---is a major contributer to global warming. Since data suggests that Mars is experiencing similar warming (and other planets based on another poster's links), then it calls into doubt the groupthink that man is the cause. It suggests the Sun is a big contributer, which is an assertion made by those who deny-that-man-causes-global-warming.
My own observation is that there is a logical fallacy. When deniers deny global warming, they refute man's role in global warming. I think both sides agree the warming is occurring---part of the natural cycle of the Earth's pattern. There was an ice age, after all. We've obviously warmed up quite a bit since then. I doubt cave men had a significant impact on climate then to be the culprit. But, I digress. Those who support the notion of man-made global warming respond by claiming that the denial extends to the existence of warming period.
Another interesting point is by calling them 'deniers,' there is an implication that they refuse to accept the truth. Sort of like when the Federalists labeled themselves as Federalists and the other side as Anti-Federalists; when the Anti-Federalists were really federalists as opposed to nationalists.
Once, science insisted that the Sun and planets orbited the Earth and those who offered an alternative were hunted. There are other similar scientific misconceptions that had to be beaten out by time. I think man-made global warming is merely 21st Century Earth-centric logic.
I myself have also wondered why there's more meltage on Mars. It seems the two planets (America, er, Earth and Mars) are both experiencing a similar warming trend. If only we could see something that the two share in common.
"Probably because Iran ignores the Geneva Conventions with regard to prisoners...no..US does that too..."
As somebody fully versed in the GC as it regards to prisoners of war, I can tell you are lacking a clue. Terrorists are not protected by GC's rules on prisoners of war. To qualify, they have to meet four criteria, of which clandestine terrorist organizations typically fulfill zero. Don't believe everything the media tell you to.
"Barak Obama: Very clean and professional."
This is not the first time somebody has used these terms involving Barak Usama Obama. BTW, if elected, he would not be the first African-American President. He's stated he's strictly African---although born in the U.S., so what gives. Clinton claimed to be the first AA President, although critics of Theodore Roosevelt called him the first Black President after allowing B. Washington to dine with him at the White House.
Hillary Clinton. Notice she's the only Democrat candidate avoiding her last name? Even she realizes that right now it's more of a liability.
"I wonder how he arrives at that? If the program already existed, and Vista didn't, and MS wrote Vista with backward compatibility in mind (did they?) it's hardly the app vendor's fault. But even if MS didn't care about backward compatibility, that's not the app vendor's fault. They can't write programs to an OS that hasn't been written! So this was just a goofy statement."
Here's how it's the vendor's fault. You see, Microsoft has been working on Vista for years now. They've been constantly changing, releasing betas, refining, etc. The vendors failed to properly track a moving target. I mean, it's one thing if the target is just shifting, but another thing altogether when your _competitor_ is moving the target.
It sounds like this guy would prefer the Netscape 4.71 route of software engineering. Guess at what the specs and requirements will be, then start coding. Don't worry if the customer decides on a totally different solution.
"The model could solve the mystery of why our early universe was surprisingly well ordered."
And to think, Christianity already has the answer: "In the Beginning, God created [the Universe]." It's very unsurprisingly well ordered when one guy codes the whole thing.
First, threatening to sue can be grounds for a law suit. It's harassment. On top of that, using the courts to harass is abuse of process---which could get their attorney disbarred if he does so with full knowledge of what's going on. Could be and would be are two things. I mean, this isn't like a prosecuting attorney accusing a bunch of lacrosse jocks of gang raping a stripper to get himself re-elected.
Second, they escorted you out of the building when you were still within your two-week gratis. I think that could be construed as assenting to your quiting. At the very least, they may have thought they were firing you. Obviously, they did not need your services so much that they tried to counter-offer. So, it would be hard for them to say you were essential to their operations.
Third, you're not taking any clients with you, nor taking any company documentation. An employee has a duty of loyalty so long as they are employed, and that duty can extend to the new employment when the employee "steals" something from the former company (e.g. client, trade secrets) to benefit the new one. You are obliged to treat the former employer with some loyalty.
Fourth, your new company didn't do anything illegal in hiring you, so there's no grounds for a law suit from your former company. This plays into my first point---if the former sues the new because of you, then they're trying to harass the company to fire you; or just generally harassing you.
Of course, when I make blanket statements about loyalty and legality, I'm assuming that you've done nothing disloyal or illegal in the process.
One of the reasons a nation like Estonia can improve so much is because they were starting with almost a clean slate. The U.S. has over 100 years of telephone infrastructure _and_ industrial entrenchment to combat. A couple years back, the FCC was considering allowing broadband over powerline, IIRC. It decided not to go that route, er, because it would have pretty much nullified the telephone and cable industries.
Just so I understand your "insightful" comment. You're advocating silencing opposition to your point of view, right? How very First Amendment of you. Let me guess, you're a Democrat?
"doesn't survive the plain language of the 1976 Act"
I would agree with you. However, many things held to be "The Law" by judges fails to survive the plain language of a statute. My personal favorite of the moment is Amend. 14 sec. 5, which plainly gives Congress (not the Court) authority to enforce the 14th Amendment.
You think you're kidding. My law school sent an email to faculty stating that any document authored on its network is property of the school. Try telling a law professor that his countless hours of research and writing are not his. Apparently, the law school did not take its own IP course where the professor explained the exception for professors.
His intimate knowledge of how-they-do-it should not bear at all on this case. This is essentially an Employment Law issue first, and IP second. The key question is whether the Trooper authored the software _within the scope of employment_. If found to be within the scope, then the software belongs to the state. If not, then he retains copyright. The DOT attorney's claim of a loaned computer (specifically) to author the software is made to bolster a scope of employment claim; just as Meredith's claim that he spent countless hours _off-duty_ to counter.
For those who are authoring software _not_ within scope of employment, I offer this suggestion: keep a journal of time spent on a personal project just as you would if for employment. Use a bound journal book and track your time and progress. This is useful for two reasons. First, it helps you learn from your progress. It also helps support your claim of "on-my-own" effort. Also, use your own resources---never your employer's or client's. Every little bit you borrow increases the likelihood of a valid scope claim.