No mod points, so I just wanted to say thank you to the parent. Those claims do not cover sudo. Congratulations to the OP on using scare tactics to get to the front page os/. Well played good sir, well played.
I don't know the figures, but I would venture to guess that AT&T and Comcast are the two largest ISP's providing DSL and Cable (at least in California). Neither of them block bittorrent, maybe its time to get a new ISP. You know, one that doesn't block legitimate file transfer protocols.
Cannot handle the G forces, I agree. But too slow? Then why do UAV's still have human pilots via remote control. Humans are being taken out because the aircraft are much more maneuverable without a human body blacking out during sustained g-forces. Also, that pesky bit about losing trained airmen when an aircraft is lost.
I would argue tht IP Masquerading became popular because all of the home consumers that had a single ip address access point to their ISP and multiple devices in the home that needed a connection. High speed home access got affordable and prevalent (outside of major cities) right around '99. At the same time, home access network gateways started having an internet port and four internal network ports with NAT built in to provide the private-public IP translation.
IPv4 vs. IPv6 was not as much as an issue as ISP's not wanting to encourage home users to use multiple machines (increasing bandwidth). You might argue that ISP's didn't offer multiple public IPs because of scarcity, but that wasn't true in '99-'00. It was purely to discourage bandwidth usage and justify charging more for more robusts services that provided multiple IPs.
I'm not sure the US operates on a "loser (almost) always pays" system.
The U.S. does not operate on a loser pays system (except for court costs). Each side bears the cost of his own attorney's fees, except in the rare situation where the court awards attorney fees as part of the judgment. Also, many tort cases are filed on contingent fee structure and in those cases the attorney is paid out of the award, but technically the plaintiff is paying their own fee and merely paying after the fact with money from the award/settlement.
This is correct. In all U.S. jurisdictions that I am aware of, any individual may file a lawsuit on his own behalf regardless of his status as member of the bar.
This is true even at the Supreme Court. However, they will probably appoint an attorney if they think your case is good enough to hear. This happened in the landmark U.S. case Clarence Earl Gideon v. Florida. An indigent convict appealed his case on the grounds that he was denied a court appointed attorney. At the time, the Court had yet to decide that all indigents had the right to a court appointed attorney. Gideon wrote all of his own appeals, all the way up to the Supreme Court. When the Court decided to hear the case, it appointed an attorney to represent Gideon in fear that such an important issue needed to be argued by a trained lawyer.
Some U.S. jurisdictions have vexatious litigants too. Perhaps Florida is not one of those jurisdictions, or Mr. Thompson has not been declared as such yet.
Standard, I am not a lawyer, I do not intend to create a legal relationship with any reader. This is merely my opinion and should not be relied upon under any situation. If in need of legal advice go get competent legal advice from a bar certified attorney in your jurisdiction
.
Sorry parent, but that is not how statutory damages work in copyright. In copyright cases, the holder gets to elect to take statutory damages instead of actual damages. There is no requirement that they show an inability to prove actual damages in that case. The only limitation is that the work must be registered with the Copyright office in order to be eligible for statutory damages.
The statutory damages range from $750 - $30,000 per infringed work. That $750 is why the RIAA is willing to go only that low, since they will recover atleast that amount at trial--unless the defendant can show that she was not aware and had no reason to know she was infringing. Damages jump to $150,000 per work when the infringement is willful.
(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200. The court shall remit statutory damages in any case where an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107, if the infringer was:
Standard, IANAL disclaimer. If in need of legal advice go get competent legal advice from a bar certified attorney.
This may be a trivial point, but KSR did not raise the bar for obviousness. Most would argue that it lowered the bar required to show obviousness, by removing the teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine requirement from the analysis. Although, there is still a requirement to show some reason to combine, so it really isn't as much of a change as everyone thought. If you talk to litigators, they still drum up reasons why a person of skill in the art would combine two references, even after KSR.
--
As the author states, I am not giving legal advice. I am not a lawyer nor am I trying to be a lawyer. Do not rely on my posts to support your legal conclusions, consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction and get real advice.
Although not completely accurate, this is mostly true. The Constitution, more specifically the Bill of Rights, protects individuals from State Action. Private Universities may not be considered State Actors since they are not run by the government. Further, there are many cases involving searches in a school where the court says the need for the school to conduct itself safely outweighs a student's right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure. So, while the blanket statement that the Constitution doesn't apply is certainly wrong, that statement is not as inaccurate as people hope. I once heard a police officer say the same thing, and I was torn between the desire to burst out laughing and the desire to cry out how uninformed he was.
Yes and no. If the blog is of substantial character in the industry, it may satisfy the publication requirement.
First off, do not rely on the definition of a publication in copyright for the definition of publication in patent law.
Go see the MPEP instead:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2128.htm
"A reference is proven to be a 'printed publication' 'upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art, exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.' In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221"
Are you trying to say that patents should not apply to average joe user who makes is own item that infringes a patent?
If you are, the simple fact is there almost never is a case where BigCompany sues average joe for patent infringment (unless average joe is making/using the product for public use). There simply is no money in it for BigCompany and joe's infringing use doesn't really cost BigCompany any money.
I just finished the brief. Of course this subject deserves more thorough explanation and analysis, but who has the time.
Red Hat is arguing that the Federal Circuit has failed to apply the standards set forth by the Supreme Court. Namely, they are arguing that software along does not fall within 35 USC Section 101 without some sort of physical transformation of something. See Diamond v. Diehr. The Fed. Cir. created a standard saying that software is patentable if it creates a "useful, concrete, and tangible" result. See State Street and AT&T. The Fed. Cir. then went on to say that a numerical result is a tangible result, Red Hat says that this is incorrect based on a Supreme Court case called Benson.
Red Hat is saying the Fed. Cir. has been improperly applying Supreme Court case law. Furthermore, they are making that argument to the Fed. Cir. The Fed. Cir. did ask for the argument, so the court might be receptive. However, most courts do not overturn themselves but instead find a way to set new precedent without overturning prior case law. Should we really expect the Fed. Cir. to overturn their own decisions from State Street and AT&T?
What Red Hat is not arguing, is whether software that controls a physical process that creates a transformation in a physical thing may properly be part of a patent. That was established by the Supreme Court in Diamond v. Diehr.
First off ---- I am not a lawyer. The information contained within should not be relied upon. If you are in need of legal counsel, please seek out a licensed attorney in your state. I do not intend to create an attorney/client relationship with any reader. I am just a law student and I am not qualified to provide legal advice, but hopefully I know a little more than the average joe.
The parent is flat out wrong. The USPTO, or a court, can use a publication under 102(b) or 102(e) to show that an invention is not novel. Regardless of the status of the a patent on the prior art. 102(g) is related to if an inventor is trying to get a patent on his invention, not whether a publication can be used against another as prior art.
Perhaps I should explain. If there exists a publication describing the subject of a patent application and that publication was published more than one year prior to the application (also applies to if the subject of the patent was in public use in the US or for sale in the US), it is an absolute bar to the patent. 35 USC Section 102(b).
Blogging about an invention is a publication and can be used to destroy novelty for further inventors. The problem is that the USPTO is less likely to find your art than if it is an issued patent or an application.
Provisional applications are published after 18 months, and if the application matures into an issued patent, it will count as art from the day it was filed. You still have to meet some of the more stringent requirements though, so this may not be the right solution. Also, if you don't intend to get a patent on the idea, it is better to publish something as well as file the provisional. That way there is a publication farther back in time than just the publication of the application that will never mature into an issued patent.
But as I said before, the parent is wrong and misunderstands the import of 102(g). The designation of informative on that post is misplaced.
"In that regard, we emphasize that C Block licensees may not impose any additional discriminatory charges (one-time or recurring) or conditions on customers who seek to use devices or applications outside of those provided by the licensee. " FCC Open Access Requirements Paragraph 222 in FCC 07-132
No charges for using the device by the consumer. Of course, you are still charged service fees and if the contract is 10cents/kilobyte transfered there is nothing to stop Verizon from doing that so long as they charge everybody the same.
"In addition, C Block licensees cannot exclude applications or devices solely on the basis that such applications or devices would unreasonably increase bandwidth demands. We anticipate that demand can be adequately managed through feasible facility improvements or technology-neutral capacity pricing that does not discriminate against subscribers using third-party devices or applications."
As far as bandwidth shaping goes, the FCC says no. But, they also say that the network is subject to reasonable network management (look to the outcome of the recent Comcast dealings for guidance). The open applications requirement is subject to "reasonable network management" and if the bandwidth limitations inherent in 4G technology makes it reasonable to shape bandwidth, as compared to the bandwidth available to cable modem users, the FCC may allow Verizon to shape the bandwidth.
What? First off, copyrights originate in the Constitution Article 1 Section 8 Clause 8. The bulk of copyright is found under the United States Code Title 17. The copyright laws are broken into many separate laws, not just one law. If the Supreme Court were to decide that the punishments imposed by courts in copyright cases were unconstitutional, it could do that without invalidating every law in the title 17. The punishments for infringement are found in 17 USC Chapter 5. The $150,000 statutory damage is 17 USC Section 504(c)(2). The S.Ct. very well could find this unconstitutional own its own, separate from the rest of the copyright laws. These laws are divisible, and it wouldn't be a line item veto (that is something the president does).
Now on to your second point, an individual is free to get a copyright and enforce it however they see fit. Of course, the stated relief is limited to the options you are given. But, nobody is obligated to seek statutory damages, an individual can seek actual damages and lost profits if they wish. Further, an individual could seek injunctive relief. Lastly, (and this is the kicker) an individual may chose not to enforce the copyright at all. What relief is it that valid copyright holder wishes to have that is being denied to him?
Sorry, fail.
The fines being unconstitutional does not make the copyright unconstitutional. That is a faulty argument. Many people say that the death penalty is unconstitutional. If they are right, does that mean a criminal charge of murder is constitutional. Okay, that was very slippery slope.
The point being, infringement, punishment, and the right to copyright are all separate. You cannot say that punishment is unjust therefore the right does not exist. Now, you can chose to practice civil disobedience because you feel that the punishment is unjust and therefore you choose to disregard the law. But that does not make the copyright unconstitutional.
While saying doesn't make it law, American jurisprudence and the Federal Rules of Evidence does.
Case Law
United States v. Johnson, 575 F.2d 1347, 1360-61 (5th Cir. 1978)(where an experienced marijuana user was qualified to testify that a specific batch of marijuana came from Columbia).
FRE 702
". . . a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise. .."
Advisory Notes
"Thus within the scope of the rule are not only experts in the strictest sense of the word, e.g., physicians, physicists, and architects, but also the large group sometimes called "skilled" witnesses, such as bankers or landowners testifying to land values."
The general population does behave like the RIAA. RIAA tactics aside, uploading & downloading copyrighted materials violates US law. Okay, there is a whole debate as to whether you are entitled to download a copy of something you own for archive or to transfer to another media. But let's be honest about what is really happening, these are cases where people are usually downloading something they have never purchased and the general population is trying to "get away with whatever [it] care, as fast as [it] can."
The RIAA may not be in the right, but let's not pretend all the bitTorrent user's out there downloading the newest song by whoever the hell or the latest episode of whatever show they want are in right. Just because a segment of society feels that information should be free and shared openly doesn't make it legal. In the very least, people downloading copies of media they do not own are getting away with whatever they can, as fast as they can.
If we are going to criticize the RIAA, we should at least be honest about the activities of both sides of the game.
******** This information is not intended to create a legal relationship between myself and any reader and is merely my poor understanding of the current law. As always, don't rely on anything I say and consult your attorney (who is not I) if you need definite legal advice. Basically, I am not a lawyer... ********
First off, privilege depends on what court you are in. In Federal Courts, privilege all falls under the Federal Rules of Evidence 501. It is all case law, but basically a wife cannot be forced to testify against her husband and a husband may prevent his wife from testifying about conversations made during their marriage. The privilege doesn't apply to cases regarding family law (divorce, custody, even abuse) nor does it apply if the spouses are joint defendants (usually).
The privilege is based on the Court's view that marriage requires harmony and honesty. If spouses know they will be forced to testify against each other it will create rifts and prevent disclosure between spouses.
There is no privilege to conversations between parents and children in the Federal system. Nor in any of the states to my knowledge.
Based on the auction rules, there is nothing limiting the potential licensees to which technologies they use the licenses for. (Except maybe the blocks designated for public safety.) The cost of each license is probably enough to prevent it. The cost and the geographic limitations that is; most licenses are fairly small (designed for potential Commercial Mobile Radio Services [CMRS]) the exception being Block C in the Upper 700 MHz with is broken into 12 geographic area groupings.
Traditional analog broadcasts had higher power ratings and larger coverage areas than allowed by the new licenses. The reasons being that the broadcasts were all one direction and the broadcasters were attempting to get the signal to as many people as possible. The new licenses are designed with CMRS in mind. CMRS doesn't use the coverage TV broadcast did, the more coverage the more transmitters requiring a piece of the network. Whereas, TV there was just one transmitter. Because CMRS is all about two way communication, it makes more sense to keep the each transmitting network small and have many of them. That way you can let, say, 20 people transmit within a range of frequencies on 10th avenue and one block over allow a different set of 20 people to transmit within the same range (the network serving 40 people across the two city blocks). Increase the power rating, hence the range, now the same geographic area only serves 20 people because there isn't enough spectrum space to serve more within the frequency range. (Okay, very crude example with very little actual engineering. Somebody familiar with current GSM standards could provide a much more accurate example. But, this should convey the concept.)
Because the licenses were designed with CMRS in mind, the power ratings are lower and the size of each "cell" is smaller. In order to have effective TV broadcast you would have to buy many of the license to ensure you didn't cause interference over another licensee's geographic coverage.
Furthermore, it doesn't make sense for a broadcasting company to spend large dollars on new licenses when those broadcasters are all transitioning to digital TV. It makes more sense to just go with the transition and tell consumers that it isn't their fault because the government made them do.
Basically, there is really nothing in the auction rules themselves, but economically speaking it would not be a wise business decision.
Although a CNN article states differently, Federal Aviation Regulations only require parachutes for aerobatic flight if more than one person is in the plane. FAR Sec. 91-307
"(c) Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved parachute, no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) may execute any intentional maneuver that exceeds--"
I just wanted to thank the parent for pointing out that it isn't so much that the 9th is more likely to be overturned as it is that the 9th is more likely to be reviewed. The Supreme Court hates the 9th, as does the rest of the states in that circuit. Californians are pretty much crazy... (And yes, I am a Californian.)
Because I am sure they don't have a single embedded engineer who thought about a flaw in the code tying up the communications path and, thus, blocking the kill command from registering. There is no way they would have thought of putting in some redundancy for that part of the system.
Slashdot Mirror
No mod points, so I just wanted to say thank you to the parent. Those claims do not cover sudo. Congratulations to the OP on using scare tactics to get to the front page os /. Well played good sir, well played.
I don't know the figures, but I would venture to guess that AT&T and Comcast are the two largest ISP's providing DSL and Cable (at least in California). Neither of them block bittorrent, maybe its time to get a new ISP. You know, one that doesn't block legitimate file transfer protocols.
Cannot handle the G forces, I agree. But too slow? Then why do UAV's still have human pilots via remote control. Humans are being taken out because the aircraft are much more maneuverable without a human body blacking out during sustained g-forces. Also, that pesky bit about losing trained airmen when an aircraft is lost.
I would argue tht IP Masquerading became popular because all of the home consumers that had a single ip address access point to their ISP and multiple devices in the home that needed a connection. High speed home access got affordable and prevalent (outside of major cities) right around '99. At the same time, home access network gateways started having an internet port and four internal network ports with NAT built in to provide the private-public IP translation. IPv4 vs. IPv6 was not as much as an issue as ISP's not wanting to encourage home users to use multiple machines (increasing bandwidth). You might argue that ISP's didn't offer multiple public IPs because of scarcity, but that wasn't true in '99-'00. It was purely to discourage bandwidth usage and justify charging more for more robusts services that provided multiple IPs.
I'm not sure the US operates on a "loser (almost) always pays" system.
The U.S. does not operate on a loser pays system (except for court costs). Each side bears the cost of his own attorney's fees, except in the rare situation where the court awards attorney fees as part of the judgment. Also, many tort cases are filed on contingent fee structure and in those cases the attorney is paid out of the award, but technically the plaintiff is paying their own fee and merely paying after the fact with money from the award/settlement.
This is correct. In all U.S. jurisdictions that I am aware of, any individual may file a lawsuit on his own behalf regardless of his status as member of the bar.
This is true even at the Supreme Court. However, they will probably appoint an attorney if they think your case is good enough to hear. This happened in the landmark U.S. case Clarence Earl Gideon v. Florida. An indigent convict appealed his case on the grounds that he was denied a court appointed attorney. At the time, the Court had yet to decide that all indigents had the right to a court appointed attorney. Gideon wrote all of his own appeals, all the way up to the Supreme Court. When the Court decided to hear the case, it appointed an attorney to represent Gideon in fear that such an important issue needed to be argued by a trained lawyer.
Some U.S. jurisdictions have vexatious litigants too. Perhaps Florida is not one of those jurisdictions, or Mr. Thompson has not been declared as such yet.
Standard, I am not a lawyer, I do not intend to create a legal relationship with any reader. This is merely my opinion and should not be relied upon under any situation. If in need of legal advice go get competent legal advice from a bar certified attorney in your jurisdiction
.
Sorry parent, but that is not how statutory damages work in copyright. In copyright cases, the holder gets to elect to take statutory damages instead of actual damages. There is no requirement that they show an inability to prove actual damages in that case. The only limitation is that the work must be registered with the Copyright office in order to be eligible for statutory damages.
The statutory damages range from $750 - $30,000 per infringed work. That $750 is why the RIAA is willing to go only that low, since they will recover atleast that amount at trial--unless the defendant can show that she was not aware and had no reason to know she was infringing. Damages jump to $150,000 per work when the infringement is willful.
17 USC 412 explains registration
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000412----000-.html
17 USC 504 explains statutory damages
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000504----000-.html
(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200. The court shall remit statutory damages in any case where an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107, if the infringer was:
Standard, IANAL disclaimer. If in need of legal advice go get competent legal advice from a bar certified attorney.
This may be a trivial point, but KSR did not raise the bar for obviousness. Most would argue that it lowered the bar required to show obviousness, by removing the teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine requirement from the analysis. Although, there is still a requirement to show some reason to combine, so it really isn't as much of a change as everyone thought. If you talk to litigators, they still drum up reasons why a person of skill in the art would combine two references, even after KSR. -- As the author states, I am not giving legal advice. I am not a lawyer nor am I trying to be a lawyer. Do not rely on my posts to support your legal conclusions, consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction and get real advice.
Although not completely accurate, this is mostly true. The Constitution, more specifically the Bill of Rights, protects individuals from State Action. Private Universities may not be considered State Actors since they are not run by the government. Further, there are many cases involving searches in a school where the court says the need for the school to conduct itself safely outweighs a student's right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure. So, while the blanket statement that the Constitution doesn't apply is certainly wrong, that statement is not as inaccurate as people hope. I once heard a police officer say the same thing, and I was torn between the desire to burst out laughing and the desire to cry out how uninformed he was.
Mr. DOS has some good thoughts, but what does Ms. DOS have to say?
Yes and no. If the blog is of substantial character in the industry, it may satisfy the publication requirement. First off, do not rely on the definition of a publication in copyright for the definition of publication in patent law. Go see the MPEP instead: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2128.htm "A reference is proven to be a 'printed publication' 'upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art, exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.' In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221"
Are you trying to say that patents should not apply to average joe user who makes is own item that infringes a patent? If you are, the simple fact is there almost never is a case where BigCompany sues average joe for patent infringment (unless average joe is making/using the product for public use). There simply is no money in it for BigCompany and joe's infringing use doesn't really cost BigCompany any money.
I just finished the brief. Of course this subject deserves more thorough explanation and analysis, but who has the time.
Red Hat is arguing that the Federal Circuit has failed to apply the standards set forth by the Supreme Court. Namely, they are arguing that software along does not fall within 35 USC Section 101 without some sort of physical transformation of something. See Diamond v. Diehr. The Fed. Cir. created a standard saying that software is patentable if it creates a "useful, concrete, and tangible" result. See State Street and AT&T. The Fed. Cir. then went on to say that a numerical result is a tangible result, Red Hat says that this is incorrect based on a Supreme Court case called Benson.
Red Hat is saying the Fed. Cir. has been improperly applying Supreme Court case law. Furthermore, they are making that argument to the Fed. Cir. The Fed. Cir. did ask for the argument, so the court might be receptive. However, most courts do not overturn themselves but instead find a way to set new precedent without overturning prior case law. Should we really expect the Fed. Cir. to overturn their own decisions from State Street and AT&T?
What Red Hat is not arguing, is whether software that controls a physical process that creates a transformation in a physical thing may properly be part of a patent. That was established by the Supreme Court in Diamond v. Diehr.
First off ---- I am not a lawyer. The information contained within should not be relied upon. If you are in need of legal counsel, please seek out a licensed attorney in your state. I do not intend to create an attorney/client relationship with any reader. I am just a law student and I am not qualified to provide legal advice, but hopefully I know a little more than the average joe.
The parent is flat out wrong. The USPTO, or a court, can use a publication under 102(b) or 102(e) to show that an invention is not novel. Regardless of the status of the a patent on the prior art. 102(g) is related to if an inventor is trying to get a patent on his invention, not whether a publication can be used against another as prior art.
Perhaps I should explain. If there exists a publication describing the subject of a patent application and that publication was published more than one year prior to the application (also applies to if the subject of the patent was in public use in the US or for sale in the US), it is an absolute bar to the patent. 35 USC Section 102(b).
Blogging about an invention is a publication and can be used to destroy novelty for further inventors. The problem is that the USPTO is less likely to find your art than if it is an issued patent or an application.
If the As a suggestion to the original post, maybe a provisional application would meet your desire:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/provapp.htm
Provisional applications are published after 18 months, and if the application matures into an issued patent, it will count as art from the day it was filed. You still have to meet some of the more stringent requirements though, so this may not be the right solution. Also, if you don't intend to get a patent on the idea, it is better to publish something as well as file the provisional. That way there is a publication farther back in time than just the publication of the application that will never mature into an issued patent.
But as I said before, the parent is wrong and misunderstands the import of 102(g). The designation of informative on that post is misplaced.
"In that regard, we emphasize that C Block licensees may not impose any additional discriminatory charges (one-time or recurring) or conditions on customers who seek to use devices or applications outside of those provided by the licensee.
" FCC Open Access Requirements Paragraph 222 in FCC 07-132
No charges for using the device by the consumer. Of course, you are still charged service fees and if the contract is 10cents/kilobyte transfered there is nothing to stop Verizon from doing that so long as they charge everybody the same.
"In addition, C Block licensees cannot exclude applications or devices solely on the basis that such applications or devices would unreasonably increase bandwidth demands. We anticipate that demand can be adequately managed through feasible facility improvements or technology-neutral capacity pricing that does not discriminate against subscribers using third-party devices or applications."
As far as bandwidth shaping goes, the FCC says no. But, they also say that the network is subject to reasonable network management (look to the outcome of the recent Comcast dealings for guidance). The open applications requirement is subject to "reasonable network management" and if the bandwidth limitations inherent in 4G technology makes it reasonable to shape bandwidth, as compared to the bandwidth available to cable modem users, the FCC may allow Verizon to shape the bandwidth.
What? First off, copyrights originate in the Constitution Article 1 Section 8 Clause 8. The bulk of copyright is found under the United States Code Title 17. The copyright laws are broken into many separate laws, not just one law. If the Supreme Court were to decide that the punishments imposed by courts in copyright cases were unconstitutional, it could do that without invalidating every law in the title 17. The punishments for infringement are found in 17 USC Chapter 5. The $150,000 statutory damage is 17 USC Section 504(c)(2). The S.Ct. very well could find this unconstitutional own its own, separate from the rest of the copyright laws. These laws are divisible, and it wouldn't be a line item veto (that is something the president does). Now on to your second point, an individual is free to get a copyright and enforce it however they see fit. Of course, the stated relief is limited to the options you are given. But, nobody is obligated to seek statutory damages, an individual can seek actual damages and lost profits if they wish. Further, an individual could seek injunctive relief. Lastly, (and this is the kicker) an individual may chose not to enforce the copyright at all. What relief is it that valid copyright holder wishes to have that is being denied to him? Sorry, fail.
The fines being unconstitutional does not make the copyright unconstitutional. That is a faulty argument. Many people say that the death penalty is unconstitutional. If they are right, does that mean a criminal charge of murder is constitutional. Okay, that was very slippery slope. The point being, infringement, punishment, and the right to copyright are all separate. You cannot say that punishment is unjust therefore the right does not exist. Now, you can chose to practice civil disobedience because you feel that the punishment is unjust and therefore you choose to disregard the law. But that does not make the copyright unconstitutional.
While saying doesn't make it law, American jurisprudence and the Federal Rules of Evidence does. Case Law United States v. Johnson, 575 F.2d 1347, 1360-61 (5th Cir. 1978)(where an experienced marijuana user was qualified to testify that a specific batch of marijuana came from Columbia). FRE 702 ". . . a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise. . ."
Advisory Notes
"Thus within the scope of the rule are not only experts in the strictest sense of the word, e.g., physicians, physicists, and architects, but also the large group sometimes called "skilled" witnesses, such as bankers or landowners testifying to land values."
The general population does behave like the RIAA. RIAA tactics aside, uploading & downloading copyrighted materials violates US law. Okay, there is a whole debate as to whether you are entitled to download a copy of something you own for archive or to transfer to another media. But let's be honest about what is really happening, these are cases where people are usually downloading something they have never purchased and the general population is trying to "get away with whatever [it] care, as fast as [it] can."
The RIAA may not be in the right, but let's not pretend all the bitTorrent user's out there downloading the newest song by whoever the hell or the latest episode of whatever show they want are in right. Just because a segment of society feels that information should be free and shared openly doesn't make it legal. In the very least, people downloading copies of media they do not own are getting away with whatever they can, as fast as they can.
If we are going to criticize the RIAA, we should at least be honest about the activities of both sides of the game.
********
This information is not intended to create a legal relationship between myself and any reader and is merely my poor understanding of the current law. As always, don't rely on anything I say and consult your attorney (who is not I) if you need definite legal advice. Basically, I am not a lawyer...
********
First off, privilege depends on what court you are in. In Federal Courts, privilege all falls under the Federal Rules of Evidence 501. It is all case law, but basically a wife cannot be forced to testify against her husband and a husband may prevent his wife from testifying about conversations made during their marriage. The privilege doesn't apply to cases regarding family law (divorce, custody, even abuse) nor does it apply if the spouses are joint defendants (usually).
The privilege is based on the Court's view that marriage requires harmony and honesty. If spouses know they will be forced to testify against each other it will create rifts and prevent disclosure between spouses.
There is no privilege to conversations between parents and children in the Federal system. Nor in any of the states to my knowledge.
Based on the auction rules, there is nothing limiting the potential licensees to which technologies they use the licenses for. (Except maybe the blocks designated for public safety.) The cost of each license is probably enough to prevent it. The cost and the geographic limitations that is; most licenses are fairly small (designed for potential Commercial Mobile Radio Services [CMRS]) the exception being Block C in the Upper 700 MHz with is broken into 12 geographic area groupings.
Traditional analog broadcasts had higher power ratings and larger coverage areas than allowed by the new licenses. The reasons being that the broadcasts were all one direction and the broadcasters were attempting to get the signal to as many people as possible. The new licenses are designed with CMRS in mind. CMRS doesn't use the coverage TV broadcast did, the more coverage the more transmitters requiring a piece of the network. Whereas, TV there was just one transmitter. Because CMRS is all about two way communication, it makes more sense to keep the each transmitting network small and have many of them. That way you can let, say, 20 people transmit within a range of frequencies on 10th avenue and one block over allow a different set of 20 people to transmit within the same range (the network serving 40 people across the two city blocks). Increase the power rating, hence the range, now the same geographic area only serves 20 people because there isn't enough spectrum space to serve more within the frequency range. (Okay, very crude example with very little actual engineering. Somebody familiar with current GSM standards could provide a much more accurate example. But, this should convey the concept.)
Because the licenses were designed with CMRS in mind, the power ratings are lower and the size of each "cell" is smaller. In order to have effective TV broadcast you would have to buy many of the license to ensure you didn't cause interference over another licensee's geographic coverage.
Furthermore, it doesn't make sense for a broadcasting company to spend large dollars on new licenses when those broadcasters are all transitioning to digital TV. It makes more sense to just go with the transition and tell consumers that it isn't their fault because the government made them do.
Basically, there is really nothing in the auction rules themselves, but economically speaking it would not be a wise business decision.
Although a CNN article states differently, Federal Aviation Regulations only require parachutes for aerobatic flight if more than one person is in the plane. FAR Sec. 91-307 "(c) Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved parachute, no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) may execute any intentional maneuver that exceeds--"
I just wanted to thank the parent for pointing out that it isn't so much that the 9th is more likely to be overturned as it is that the 9th is more likely to be reviewed. The Supreme Court hates the 9th, as does the rest of the states in that circuit. Californians are pretty much crazy... (And yes, I am a Californian.)
Because I am sure they don't have a single embedded engineer who thought about a flaw in the code tying up the communications path and, thus, blocking the kill command from registering. There is no way they would have thought of putting in some redundancy for that part of the system.