This is an annoying comment, but the description (and the article) incorrectly refer to the case as "re Bilski." The title is actually "In re Bilski" -- short for "in the matter of Bilski." Simply saying "re" sounds horrible from a legal point of view.
Why is it then that there can be an increase of 19% that are all approved? A high clearance rate is one thing, showing a functioning efficient system, but a sudden increase in approvals is very odd. Either these are high-quality wiretaps that were not submitted to the court before (Why? Did they not feel like stopping criminals?) or they are low-quality ones that are being accepted with less diligence.
An increase of 19% is difficult to explain by changes in criminal behavior. The changes in technology (buying multiple cell phones) did not suddenly occur in 2004. Remember when a beeper meant a drug dealer? Also, in some jurisdictions I think it is possible to get a warrant for a person and their communications along any channel instead of simply tapping one phone number.
Yes, this is a nice observation about the usage patterns of different clients and technologies.
No, this doesn't really matter for legal standards.
The plaintiffs in this suit are looking for secondary liability for copyright infringement under either of two theories: either the software companies helped someone else infringe (contributory) or they were responsible for the actions of the direct infringers (vicarious). The fact that the software companies received money from advertisements / adware / spyware / whatever is only relevant for the latter theory, vicarious infringement. For contributory infringement, it plays no direct role, although it can be consider among other things.
What this means is that software producers that don't gain financially from their product (i.e., FOSS) still could be liable if Grokster et al lose their case. The big fear is that any decision by the Court could be interpretted in a vague manner to chill other seemingly appropriate activities.
(There is also some talk about using an inducement standard, but that hasn't been shown yet. That would address the issue of benefit from ads directly a little bit more, but still could snare FOSS.)
To add to the above response noting that the images are transported over US-based communication lines, a common method of establishing jurisdiction in US courts is the intention of actor. If their pictures make it here, and they intended for them to be marketed in the US (or sometimes reasonably knew that they would have effects in the US), then this could be enough to grant jurisdiction.
If this weren't the case, all those Canadian Mounties could fire at will across the US border (and at Mary, Paco, Betty. ..)
As a law student struggling through an antitrust course right now, I can add a few comments. First, remember that these are the individual executives who are pleading guilty, not just the company, which probably means that there is a lot of evidence against them specifically. I am also surprised that these people have already been sentenced. What often happens is that the US Attorney will get the low-level defendants to turn on their peers and testify. After their testimony in another case they are then sentenced. In the current federal sentencing schemes, this is one of the few things that they can use to bargain down their sentence. Otherwise they are pretty bound to a strict calculation of jail time. Perhaps they stonewalled, and refused to help.
Also, remember that there are civil claims that can be brought by the companies that purchased the DRAM (i.e., Dell) but not the end consumers of the computers (I think). If they are successful, then they get treble damages, which is freakin' huge. The criminal charges do a good job of laying the ground work.
And, the easy targets fold first at a better rate. So maybe there are larger fish waiting in the wings.
The national press, including United Press International (UPI), were excluded from yesterday's event, at Mr. Tenet's request, organizers said.
then a> how do they know this?, and b> what is the original quote? The section on the limitation of access is paraphrased, and I for one am a little bit suspicious of the Washington Times.
In a similar vein, I had an Indian friend who, even though he was a literary genius, had difficulty with the more mundane features of life such as paper work. The kids in the college dorm forged an email from the university's Dean of Students saying that, unfortunately, his student visa had been revoked because he had not completed the forms properly and to report to the consulate as soon as possible to avoid being deported.
Is there any information about Project Ocean out there? It was mentioned in the article as a secret Gutenburg knockoff in cahoots with Stanford, but I can't find any details on it.
Law journals have tried to tried to cope with the proper weight of authority to grant web pages by trying to follow the Blue Book, a citation manual.
The general rule has been that whenever you can find something in print, cite to that, but add an internet cite when either it is available and would make it easier to find, or if it is only available online.
Things that are only available online are surprisingly common in citation. The leading court reporter services (WestLaw and Lexis Nexis) both have cases that aren't "officially" printed, but are available online.
Also, many journal articles will cite to web pages such as a company's official description or press releases.
In general, these citations are treated for their functional purpose and not their form of media -- online cases are grouped (last) with other cases, and information from most web site is considered a pamphlet or other unofficial publication.
This system seems to deal with the fact that they are ephemera pretty well. The citations really are only used to make a point that is merely illustrative or is easily accessible to legal practitioners.
There is a long line of cases related to when exactly the Federal courts have jurisdiction over a person, especially when they are in a foreign country, but also in another state. Because it is such a tricky thing, it mostly will hinge on the facts of the matter and the burden on the person involved. But if you can show that they knowingly and intentionally to cause harm to someone in the US, they can be subject to jurisdiction, at least in civil matters.
The other complication here relates to extradition: the short answer is that you usually need an agreement between the two countries that they will respect each other. The crimes usually exist in both countries with similar penalties, and, of course, politics will play a role in their implementation. For instance, Mexico often is bothered by US's execution of Mexican immigrants, and they have been reluctant to hand over suspects. In comparison, the Max Factor refugee that was nabbed by the vigilante on the beach probably was / will be handed over lickety-split.
There have been several high-profile cases lately about jurisdictional issues, specifically related to libel in US newspapers online and citizens in Australia (or maybe New Zealand -- I forget the details). It is definitely an evolving area of the law, and the Anti-Cybersquating legislation in the US has specific provisions to try to deal with this. There are probably other technology related statutes that have similarly tried to establish guidelines.
We would usually create Teams for the Scav Hunt (you will notice people post that they were on X team or Y House - but not a frat house) that were among the dormitories.
Essentially we would then raid the cookie fund and pitch in to make do as best as possible. The typical budget might be 300USD for a team of 20 active people. The goal was to win so that we might break even with the prize money. And donuts can be very nutritious.
The best part of this is always the road trip, and that has not been mentioned really. You have about four days to get someplace far, far away and back with a ton of stuff. One year we went to New Orleans and NYC the next (in a rented Neon) in a whirlwind tour of taking photos and items, all in a rush to decipher where to go along the route. (If they told you outright where you were going and where you had to stop, it wouldn't be fun.) Definitely the best part.
Slashdot Mirror
This is an annoying comment, but the description (and the article) incorrectly refer to the case as "re Bilski." The title is actually "In re Bilski" -- short for "in the matter of Bilski." Simply saying "re" sounds horrible from a legal point of view.
XML advocacy site + third party organization to validate well-formedness = the obvious
Why is it then that there can be an increase of 19% that are all approved? A high clearance rate is one thing, showing a functioning efficient system, but a sudden increase in approvals is very odd. Either these are high-quality wiretaps that were not submitted to the court before (Why? Did they not feel like stopping criminals?) or they are low-quality ones that are being accepted with less diligence.
An increase of 19% is difficult to explain by changes in criminal behavior. The changes in technology (buying multiple cell phones) did not suddenly occur in 2004. Remember when a beeper meant a drug dealer? Also, in some jurisdictions I think it is possible to get a warrant for a person and their communications along any channel instead of simply tapping one phone number.
Yes, this is a nice observation about the usage patterns of different clients and technologies.
No, this doesn't really matter for legal standards.
The plaintiffs in this suit are looking for secondary liability for copyright infringement under either of two theories: either the software companies helped someone else infringe (contributory) or they were responsible for the actions of the direct infringers (vicarious). The fact that the software companies received money from advertisements / adware / spyware / whatever is only relevant for the latter theory, vicarious infringement. For contributory infringement, it plays no direct role, although it can be consider among other things.
What this means is that software producers that don't gain financially from their product (i.e., FOSS) still could be liable if Grokster et al lose their case. The big fear is that any decision by the Court could be interpretted in a vague manner to chill other seemingly appropriate activities.
(There is also some talk about using an inducement standard, but that hasn't been shown yet. That would address the issue of benefit from ads directly a little bit more, but still could snare FOSS.)
Ads don't kill technology -- (overactive) copyright does.
To add to the above response noting that the images are transported over US-based communication lines, a common method of establishing jurisdiction in US courts is the intention of actor. If their pictures make it here, and they intended for them to be marketed in the US (or sometimes reasonably knew that they would have effects in the US), then this could be enough to grant jurisdiction.
.)
If this weren't the case, all those Canadian Mounties could fire at will across the US border (and at Mary, Paco, Betty. .
As a law student struggling through an antitrust course right now, I can add a few comments. First, remember that these are the individual executives who are pleading guilty, not just the company, which probably means that there is a lot of evidence against them specifically. I am also surprised that these people have already been sentenced. What often happens is that the US Attorney will get the low-level defendants to turn on their peers and testify. After their testimony in another case they are then sentenced. In the current federal sentencing schemes, this is one of the few things that they can use to bargain down their sentence. Otherwise they are pretty bound to a strict calculation of jail time. Perhaps they stonewalled, and refused to help.
Also, remember that there are civil claims that can be brought by the companies that purchased the DRAM (i.e., Dell) but not the end consumers of the computers (I think). If they are successful, then they get treble damages, which is freakin' huge. The criminal charges do a good job of laying the ground work.
And, the easy targets fold first at a better rate. So maybe there are larger fish waiting in the wings.
In a similar vein, I had an Indian friend who, even though he was a literary genius, had difficulty with the more mundane features of life such as paper work. The kids in the college dorm forged an email from the university's Dean of Students saying that, unfortunately, his student visa had been revoked because he had not completed the forms properly and to report to the consulate as soon as possible to avoid being deported.
He screamed very loudly.
Is there any information about Project Ocean out there? It was mentioned in the article as a secret Gutenburg knockoff in cahoots with Stanford, but I can't find any details on it.
Get ready for the future: http://ftrain.com/TheWorkers.html
Law journals have tried to tried to cope with the proper weight of authority to grant web pages by trying to follow the Blue Book, a citation manual.
The general rule has been that whenever you can find something in print, cite to that, but add an internet cite when either it is available and would make it easier to find, or if it is only available online.
Things that are only available online are surprisingly common in citation. The leading court reporter services (WestLaw and Lexis Nexis) both have cases that aren't "officially" printed, but are available online.
Also, many journal articles will cite to web pages such as a company's official description or press releases.
In general, these citations are treated for their functional purpose and not their form of media -- online cases are grouped (last) with other cases, and information from most web site is considered a pamphlet or other unofficial publication.
This system seems to deal with the fact that they are ephemera pretty well. The citations really are only used to make a point that is merely illustrative or is easily accessible to legal practitioners.
There is a long line of cases related to when exactly the Federal courts have jurisdiction over a person, especially when they are in a foreign country, but also in another state. Because it is such a tricky thing, it mostly will hinge on the facts of the matter and the burden on the person involved. But if you can show that they knowingly and intentionally to cause harm to someone in the US, they can be subject to jurisdiction, at least in civil matters.
The other complication here relates to extradition: the short answer is that you usually need an agreement between the two countries that they will respect each other. The crimes usually exist in both countries with similar penalties, and, of course, politics will play a role in their implementation. For instance, Mexico often is bothered by US's execution of Mexican immigrants, and they have been reluctant to hand over suspects. In comparison, the Max Factor refugee that was nabbed by the vigilante on the beach probably was / will be handed over lickety-split.
There have been several high-profile cases lately about jurisdictional issues, specifically related to libel in US newspapers online and citizens in Australia (or maybe New Zealand -- I forget the details). It is definitely an evolving area of the law, and the Anti-Cybersquating legislation in the US has specific provisions to try to deal with this. There are probably other technology related statutes that have similarly tried to establish guidelines.
Essentially we would then raid the cookie fund and pitch in to make do as best as possible. The typical budget might be 300USD for a team of 20 active people. The goal was to win so that we might break even with the prize money. And donuts can be very nutritious.
The best part of this is always the road trip, and that has not been mentioned really. You have about four days to get someplace far, far away and back with a ton of stuff. One year we went to New Orleans and NYC the next (in a rented Neon) in a whirlwind tour of taking photos and items, all in a rush to decipher where to go along the route. (If they told you outright where you were going and where you had to stop, it wouldn't be fun.) Definitely the best part.