First of all, EFF wrote the brief. The other orgs signed on. And none of them are seeking, or will get money. They are merely writing as amici curiae("friends of the court"), encouraging the court to award attorneys' fees to the people who did represent the woman. In legal cases, "interested parties" may submit briefs to the court, in a way helping the various parties with their arguments. That is what is happening here. EFF is writing to help the woman argue that she should be awarded the money she paid her attorneys to argue the case.
Right, but you're still misunderstanding the way that count is done. It isn't possible to settle until a lawsuit has been filed. "Settle" means "settle a lawsuit." That's when the parties [of a lawsuit] decide to voluntarily agree on the outcome of the case, instead of letting a judge or jury decide. If someone settles, they are doing so before trial, not before a lawsuit has been filed. The 18,000 refers to the number of initial filings of lawsuits, which includes everyone who settled.
As for the accuracy of the count, until February the RIAA was actually releasing the number of lawsuits in its press releases. Also remember that court filings are public documents. So the 18,000 is a pretty accurate count.
18,000 are the number of lawsuits filed, but that number already includes the ones filed against individuals who settled. The figure refers to the fact that there were over 18,000 suits filed against John Does, almost all of whom settled without going to trial.
The average settlement is, AFAIK, around $3750.
There are likely attorneys on staff, but the likelihood is that they pay (one or several) large firms to do the lawsuits for them. The suits are based on federal law (copyrights) and so they probably sue in a certain federal district court of their choosing. Probably the Southern District of New York (NYC). This creates an added hassle to people who want to fight the suit, because they are forced to defend in a distant forum.
Well, I am not a "real lawyer," but I am a law student.
The district court and the Court of Appeals have already decided that eBay is infringing the patent. The patent is a business method patent, and as with most business method patents, it is fairly obvious. Nevertheless, the Patent Office is in the unfortunate habit of granting these stupid patents.
So, eBay is infringing. The Supreme Court will not even be reviewing that fact. The real question in the case is whether or not MercExchange can get a permanent injunction, disallowing eBay from using the Buy It Now feature until they reach a licensing agreement.
The district court sided with eBay on the issue, saying that the hardship an injunction would create for eBay outweighed MercExchange's property right in their patent.
The Court of Appeals reversed, citing the "usual rule" that a permanent injunction would be granted unless there are "special circumstances" involved.
The Supreme Court is reviewing the question of whether a court should presume that an injunction should issue, or whether the court should look at the individual case and decide whether it is necessary and/or appropriate to issue the injunction. More specifically, the sole question the Supreme Court has certified is:
"Whether the Federal Circuit erred in setting forth a general rule in patent cases that a district court must, absent exceptional circumstances, issue a permanent injunction after a finding of infringement."
IANAL, but I am a law student. There is no higher burden of proof for the contract writer, since a contract is a mutual agreement. However, in the event that it goes to court and the two parties differ in their interpretation of the contract, and the contract is in some way ambiguous (and it almost certainly will be if you're writing it without a lawyer) the court will take into account what the parties discussed while writing the contract, to try to find that there was an understanding between the parties over what the contentious provision meant.
If no such understanding can be found and the court is left to interpret a contentious contract provision, the parties are liable for what they objectively contracted for, not for what they think they contracted for. Because of this, it doesn't matter who writes the contract.
I'm thinking that perhaps that is why we find that particular smell so noxious. Could we somehow know the possible negative effects? Could the "bad smell" that we perceive be our body warning us?
But buying a smaller car or a hybrid will still result in vast overall savings for each buyer. This is not discouraging people to do that. It just means that all people who use the roads will be paying for using the roads.
I used Firefox last year (may have been called Firebird at the time), and it worked great on HR Block. It's only free if you don't make much money, but if you do make a lot of money, then you should probably be paying a professional to prepare your taxes and advise you on how to hide your money from the IRS.
Actually, I know some of the guys in the pictures. They're frat boys from Vanderbilt, my school. I am privileged enough to have gotten drunk on their beer freshman year.
In any case, I happen to know that they are nowhere near smart enough or geeky enough to create a blog out of their pictures, let alone do so as a hoax.
I type over 100 wpm (just barely over, but over) without ever taking a typing course. How did I learn? IMs. Not everyone who uses IMs speaks in that sort of shorthand. Many, many people I know utterly disdain people who type like that, and no one I know actually encourages it.
And, even if someone does type like you are saying they do, it is absolutely true that the skill to type quickly that way will be easily adaptable to typing with proper spelling and grammar. Typing is the skill of being able to make your hands press the letters that are in your head, and that is the same whether you spell things correctly or incorrectly. You can reasonably allege that IMs are ruining kids' spelling, but not that they are ruining their typing skills.
The parent was unfairly modded. I wish I could meta-moderate all "Troll" and "Flamebait" mods.
I tend to agree with what he was saying. The language of conversation is defined by the participants in the conversation. If the participants are Brazilian, they have every right to speak in their native language.
I agree with many other comments saying Google should provide a language field so that users can self-segregate if they choose to, but until that happens, we Americans have no right to coerce them into adopting our language.
I implied no such thing. I said only that it would happen whenever the child decides for it to happen. Of course parents have an immeasurable influence over when the children make that decision, I'm just saying that once the child makes the decision, there's little the parent can do to prevent them from carrying it out.
Do you think that male virginity is inherently less valuable than female virginity?
No, not at all. But I do think that most parents tend to think their daughters need to be protected and sheltered a lot more than their sons. I think this is an irrational and outdated view.
I am not saying pre-marital sex is inevitable, nor should children be told that it is, nor should parents act as if it is. As I said, parents have a lot of influence over when their children decide to have sex. I am simply saying that they don't have the power to prevent the child from carrying out the actions in accordance with their decisions about sex.
As such, they should be willing to give their children whatever resources the children need (whether it is knowledge, advice, love, or condoms) to make the best decisions and then act in the safest way possible in accordance with those decisions.
You're correct in your assumptions about my life, but you seem to assume that the type of parenting I propose is not advocated by any actual parents. The fact is, this is more or less what my parents did.
They did not hide the concept of sex from me, although they always promoted the idea that it was not an act to be taken lightly, not solely an act of pleasure, and that it had possible grave and far-reaching consequences.
I think it is the case that many 16 year-olds cannot comprehend the consequences, but I think most can. I think I could. And I think I made the right decisions about it.
Because my parents were honest and open with me about it, when I started considering having sex, I went to them and talked to them about it (which was still tough and awkward, but at least possible). I made what I consider (and what they consider) responsible decisions. There are many other parents who are the same way.
I'm not saying that this approach works for all teens--and this approach certainly does not jive with most religious views--but where parents have open communication channels, and a relationship of trust exists, I think this is, more often than not, the best way to ensure the child's safety.
I know so many people whose parents sheltered them and so they just lied to them and said they were going to the movies but went out somewhere and had unprotected sex in the backseat of a car (and I know several who got pregnant or who got their girlfriends pregnant). Likewise, I know many who were sheltered in high school and then as soon as they got to college, they started having all the sex they could, with anyone they could.
This obviously won't happen to everyone, but the point is, sex is going to happen, no matter what the parents do. Think back to when you were sixteen. You and your friends (despite your current status as readers of Slashdot) probably had sex. And your parents probably were not very encouraging of it. But you still had it.
I know it is very hard for a parent to willfully let their daughter (or even son) give up their virginity, but you have to face that it is going to happen whenever they want it to happen, whatever you do. Assuming religion isn't getting in the way, then it seems like the better choice to acknowledge that it will happen when they feel they are ready, and seek to be honest and open, and maybe even tell them that you don't think they're ready, but be supportive of their decisions in such a way as to encourage the maximum amount of safety when they act on those decisions.
we have a culture which pressures the sixteen year old boy to have sex in the backseat rather than hang on a few years until he has some vague chances of dealing with it in a capable way.
...or rather than have sex in his bedroom, in his parents house, with condoms that they offered to provide him if he wanted them, and with the education provided by parents that are willing to discuss things rationally.
You see, there is nothing wrong with many sixteen year-olds having sex, as long as they have safe sex and understand the consequences. The problem is that our culture attaches a stigma and negative consequences to honesty about sexuality. This forces the sixteen year-olds (even more so with girls) into ignorant secrecy and likely unsafe sex.
No, they aren't. But I can imagine a scenario in which some high-level Microsoft guy says to his lower-level manager, "Jerry, listen... AV sales are down this month. See if you can't open up an exploitable hole with this next update. We'll leak it to the script kiddies and we'll be bringing in the dough."
They make a buggy OS with holes for viruses, and then require consumers to purchase their own AntiVirus to patch them. This removes motivation for producing a secure operating system because the worse their OS software, the more people will buy their AntiVirus product.
It seems like they're trying to figure out a way to charge for bugfixes and incremental updates to their security model, but instead of just selling those fixes like Apple (10.0, 10.1, 10.2--which I understand also have lots of new features), this model actually discourages production of good product in the first place.
Basically, the question must be asked: If they have the capability to provide such a product which tacks onto Windows, why can't they just incorporate it into Windows and make it part of the OS?
But you wouldn't connec the button to the play/pause button, that would be silly. You'd connect it to the next track button, and just leave it on repeat with that as the only track.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, okay. Anyway, this is a case that the ACLU would conceivably take. The RIAA's groundless settlement factory is a due process violation.
First of all, EFF wrote the brief. The other orgs signed on. And none of them are seeking, or will get money. They are merely writing as amici curiae("friends of the court"), encouraging the court to award attorneys' fees to the people who did represent the woman. In legal cases, "interested parties" may submit briefs to the court, in a way helping the various parties with their arguments. That is what is happening here. EFF is writing to help the woman argue that she should be awarded the money she paid her attorneys to argue the case.
Right, but you're still misunderstanding the way that count is done. It isn't possible to settle until a lawsuit has been filed. "Settle" means "settle a lawsuit." That's when the parties [of a lawsuit] decide to voluntarily agree on the outcome of the case, instead of letting a judge or jury decide. If someone settles, they are doing so before trial, not before a lawsuit has been filed. The 18,000 refers to the number of initial filings of lawsuits, which includes everyone who settled.
As for the accuracy of the count, until February the RIAA was actually releasing the number of lawsuits in its press releases. Also remember that court filings are public documents. So the 18,000 is a pretty accurate count.
Attorney's fees are not paid by the state, they are paid by the losing party. For instance, in this case, the RIAA would be the ones paying the fees.
You're off on a few points:
18,000 are the number of lawsuits filed, but that number already includes the ones filed against individuals who settled. The figure refers to the fact that there were over 18,000 suits filed against John Does, almost all of whom settled without going to trial.
The average settlement is, AFAIK, around $3750.
There are likely attorneys on staff, but the likelihood is that they pay (one or several) large firms to do the lawsuits for them. The suits are based on federal law (copyrights) and so they probably sue in a certain federal district court of their choosing. Probably the Southern District of New York (NYC). This creates an added hassle to people who want to fight the suit, because they are forced to defend in a distant forum.
The district court and the Court of Appeals have already decided that eBay is infringing the patent. The patent is a business method patent, and as with most business method patents, it is fairly obvious. Nevertheless, the Patent Office is in the unfortunate habit of granting these stupid patents.
So, eBay is infringing. The Supreme Court will not even be reviewing that fact. The real question in the case is whether or not MercExchange can get a permanent injunction, disallowing eBay from using the Buy It Now feature until they reach a licensing agreement.
The district court sided with eBay on the issue, saying that the hardship an injunction would create for eBay outweighed MercExchange's property right in their patent.
The Court of Appeals reversed, citing the "usual rule" that a permanent injunction would be granted unless there are "special circumstances" involved.
The Supreme Court is reviewing the question of whether a court should presume that an injunction should issue, or whether the court should look at the individual case and decide whether it is necessary and/or appropriate to issue the injunction. More specifically, the sole question the Supreme Court has certified is:
Here is the docket for the case, the Question Presented in the case, and a great summary of the arguments for either side.
IANAL, but I am a law student. There is no higher burden of proof for the contract writer, since a contract is a mutual agreement. However, in the event that it goes to court and the two parties differ in their interpretation of the contract, and the contract is in some way ambiguous (and it almost certainly will be if you're writing it without a lawyer) the court will take into account what the parties discussed while writing the contract, to try to find that there was an understanding between the parties over what the contentious provision meant. If no such understanding can be found and the court is left to interpret a contentious contract provision, the parties are liable for what they objectively contracted for, not for what they think they contracted for. Because of this, it doesn't matter who writes the contract.
I was there last week. Definitely not tiny. Probably between 100,000 and 200,000. And they do the microcalligraphy all over Israel.
I'm thinking that perhaps that is why we find that particular smell so noxious. Could we somehow know the possible negative effects? Could the "bad smell" that we perceive be our body warning us?
Actually, your mother's recipes for hash browns would be a trade secret, not a patent.
But buying a smaller car or a hybrid will still result in vast overall savings for each buyer. This is not discouraging people to do that. It just means that all people who use the roads will be paying for using the roads.
I used Firefox last year (may have been called Firebird at the time), and it worked great on HR Block. It's only free if you don't make much money, but if you do make a lot of money, then you should probably be paying a professional to prepare your taxes and advise you on how to hide your money from the IRS.
But if it is mined from bauxite, isn't there still the same reliance on a non-renewable resource? Of course, still better pollution-wise.
But what is the chemical used, and can it be manufactured cheaply, and without relying on fossil fuels?
Actually, I know some of the guys in the pictures. They're frat boys from Vanderbilt, my school. I am privileged enough to have gotten drunk on their beer freshman year.
In any case, I happen to know that they are nowhere near smart enough or geeky enough to create a blog out of their pictures, let alone do so as a hoax.
I type over 100 wpm (just barely over, but over) without ever taking a typing course. How did I learn? IMs. Not everyone who uses IMs speaks in that sort of shorthand. Many, many people I know utterly disdain people who type like that, and no one I know actually encourages it.
And, even if someone does type like you are saying they do, it is absolutely true that the skill to type quickly that way will be easily adaptable to typing with proper spelling and grammar. Typing is the skill of being able to make your hands press the letters that are in your head, and that is the same whether you spell things correctly or incorrectly. You can reasonably allege that IMs are ruining kids' spelling, but not that they are ruining their typing skills.
The parent was unfairly modded. I wish I could meta-moderate all "Troll" and "Flamebait" mods.
I tend to agree with what he was saying. The language of conversation is defined by the participants in the conversation. If the participants are Brazilian, they have every right to speak in their native language.
I agree with many other comments saying Google should provide a language field so that users can self-segregate if they choose to, but until that happens, we Americans have no right to coerce them into adopting our language.
I implied no such thing. I said only that it would happen whenever the child decides for it to happen. Of course parents have an immeasurable influence over when the children make that decision, I'm just saying that once the child makes the decision, there's little the parent can do to prevent them from carrying it out.
Do you think that male virginity is inherently less valuable than female virginity?
No, not at all. But I do think that most parents tend to think their daughters need to be protected and sheltered a lot more than their sons. I think this is an irrational and outdated view.
I am not saying pre-marital sex is inevitable, nor should children be told that it is, nor should parents act as if it is. As I said, parents have a lot of influence over when their children decide to have sex. I am simply saying that they don't have the power to prevent the child from carrying out the actions in accordance with their decisions about sex.
As such, they should be willing to give their children whatever resources the children need (whether it is knowledge, advice, love, or condoms) to make the best decisions and then act in the safest way possible in accordance with those decisions.
You're correct in your assumptions about my life, but you seem to assume that the type of parenting I propose is not advocated by any actual parents. The fact is, this is more or less what my parents did.
They did not hide the concept of sex from me, although they always promoted the idea that it was not an act to be taken lightly, not solely an act of pleasure, and that it had possible grave and far-reaching consequences.
I think it is the case that many 16 year-olds cannot comprehend the consequences, but I think most can. I think I could. And I think I made the right decisions about it.
Because my parents were honest and open with me about it, when I started considering having sex, I went to them and talked to them about it (which was still tough and awkward, but at least possible). I made what I consider (and what they consider) responsible decisions. There are many other parents who are the same way.
I'm not saying that this approach works for all teens--and this approach certainly does not jive with most religious views--but where parents have open communication channels, and a relationship of trust exists, I think this is, more often than not, the best way to ensure the child's safety.
I know so many people whose parents sheltered them and so they just lied to them and said they were going to the movies but went out somewhere and had unprotected sex in the backseat of a car (and I know several who got pregnant or who got their girlfriends pregnant). Likewise, I know many who were sheltered in high school and then as soon as they got to college, they started having all the sex they could, with anyone they could.
This obviously won't happen to everyone, but the point is, sex is going to happen, no matter what the parents do. Think back to when you were sixteen. You and your friends (despite your current status as readers of Slashdot) probably had sex. And your parents probably were not very encouraging of it. But you still had it.
I know it is very hard for a parent to willfully let their daughter (or even son) give up their virginity, but you have to face that it is going to happen whenever they want it to happen, whatever you do. Assuming religion isn't getting in the way, then it seems like the better choice to acknowledge that it will happen when they feel they are ready, and seek to be honest and open, and maybe even tell them that you don't think they're ready, but be supportive of their decisions in such a way as to encourage the maximum amount of safety when they act on those decisions.
we have a culture which pressures the sixteen year old boy to have sex in the backseat rather than hang on a few years until he has some vague chances of dealing with it in a capable way.
...or rather than have sex in his bedroom, in his parents house, with condoms that they offered to provide him if he wanted them, and with the education provided by parents that are willing to discuss things rationally.
You see, there is nothing wrong with many sixteen year-olds having sex, as long as they have safe sex and understand the consequences. The problem is that our culture attaches a stigma and negative consequences to honesty about sexuality. This forces the sixteen year-olds (even more so with girls) into ignorant secrecy and likely unsafe sex.
This may be one of the top 5 most insightful posts I have ever seen on Slashdot. And me without my mod points...
No, they aren't. But I can imagine a scenario in which some high-level Microsoft guy says to his lower-level manager, "Jerry, listen... AV sales are down this month. See if you can't open up an exploitable hole with this next update. We'll leak it to the script kiddies and we'll be bringing in the dough."
Sounds like extortion to me.
They make a buggy OS with holes for viruses, and then require consumers to purchase their own AntiVirus to patch them. This removes motivation for producing a secure operating system because the worse their OS software, the more people will buy their AntiVirus product.
It seems like they're trying to figure out a way to charge for bugfixes and incremental updates to their security model, but instead of just selling those fixes like Apple (10.0, 10.1, 10.2--which I understand also have lots of new features), this model actually discourages production of good product in the first place.
Basically, the question must be asked: If they have the capability to provide such a product which tacks onto Windows, why can't they just incorporate it into Windows and make it part of the OS?
Screw Bluetooth. This isn't 2002. Now, show me a USB captain's wheel, and I'll be a happy man!
But you wouldn't connec the button to the play/pause button, that would be silly. You'd connect it to the next track button, and just leave it on repeat with that as the only track.