Google US admitted it does business in Canada, so it can't say it's the Canadian branch's problem. The branch is a wholly owned subsidiary in any case, so they lose even if they try to say "Blame (our branch in) Canada".
It's hard to make a multinational look like a collection of national companies: the courts look at reality and say "tell it to the judge" (sarcastically (;-))
In response to multiple complaints that we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 18 results from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaints that caused the removals at LumenDatabase.org: Complaint, Complaint, Complaint, Complaint.
In response to multiple complaints that we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 18 results from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaints that caused the removals at LumenDatabase.org:
Most places distinguish "commercial speech" (ie, ads) from real speech and have laws restricting it, so you can't advertise, for example, stolen goods.
Actually it was the EU that is the important place to block: the company who had stolen Equustek's technology seems to have fled to France, and was selling it in the EU.
Equustek did sue the proper defendant, who fled the country and is doing business (apparently in France). Google initially asked for the suit to be filed and agreed the take down links to the other company's sites, and agreement which the courts understood to be worldwide Google then remove the links in Canada, and not France. The court isued a temporary restraining order to get Google to take the sites down until Equustek and/or interpol could find the crooks and have the local French courts enforce the Canadian order.
The Supreme Court of Canada specifically asked Google to provide evidence that the case involved the blocking of speech, not just "commercial speech" (ie, ads). The US courts have not heard the matter, but have issues a temporary restraining order to restrain the temporary restraining order (;-))
If Google was strictly a US company that didn't do business in Canada, a Canadian court would send an order based on the outcome of the suit to the US, and ask them to enforce it there. In this case, Google is one company subject to two contradictory sets of laws, a much worse situation to be in.
That's a good description of the general case, but the Canadian one is actually about misuse of secrets, counterfeit hardware and fleeing to the EU to avoid prosecution. The law is distinctly fuzzier, with fewer and different treaties in play.
The Judge said the information is sealed (cannot be disclosed to the public), and that he wants to see it. The crown can either pony up, or drop the case.
The reason the cops are withdrawing charges is because they don't want to allow the defence to make them provide evidence that exposes the stingrays.
Canadian law doesn't allow secret evidence. Even military secrets have to be entered into evidence, although that requires judges and lawyers with high levels of clearance.
Depending on your legal regime, signing a contract should not allow you or the other party to override statute law. That's a norm in common-law systems such as Britain, the United States and Canada.
For example, a clause making you promise to not report the software you bought was stolen is not enforcable (technically the clause prohibited discussing the asember code with anyone, but the reason was that it was recognizably a different company's product). We reported it, and the thief lost in court.
In Canada, the Supreme Court has overridden "choice of venue" and other anti-suit clauses, and allowed suits and charges to be laid in such cases.
At one point, Italy experimented with a "syndicalist" scheme in which companies in an industry elected a board, and each board sent a representative for their industry to a superior board. The larger experiment was called "fascism".
Actually Canada allows a negotiated breakup, as there is no law prohibiting it. It's treated a bit like a constitutional change. Quebec fell short of a simple majority in a referendum on whether to leave, so they're still "here".
Yes, and later change jobs to get OUT of manglement.
Think of the Regimental Sergeant Major. Of course he can take over when the Colonel has to take over the brigade, and the majors will obey him. After all, he trained them. Just don't expect he won't choose the best of the company commanders to take over when the battle is done.
Some folks don't like the particular set of tradeoffs, but for a filesyste (as opposed to an object store, one of which I'm testing right now), it's a very good offering. I definitely want it on my Fedora dev laptop, along with a write cache on flash.
But like my login name, my face and my fingerprints are available to (almost) everyone. My password, on the other hand, is a secret that I and my phone know, and it exists so that other people with copies of my face or fingerprint or username can't just log in.
Slashdot Mirror
Citation, please?
Google US admitted it does business in Canada, so it can't say it's the Canadian branch's problem. The branch is a wholly owned subsidiary in any case, so they lose even if they try to say "Blame (our branch in) Canada".
It's hard to make a multinational look like a collection of national companies: the courts look at reality and say "tell it to the judge" (sarcastically (;-))
slashdot needs a spell-checker for dislectic nerds (:-))
s/and agreement/an agreement/
In response to multiple complaints that we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 18 results from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaints that caused the removals at LumenDatabase.org: Complaint, Complaint, Complaint, Complaint.
Most places distinguish "commercial speech" (ie, ads) from real speech and have laws restricting it, so you can't advertise, for example, stolen goods.
Actually it was the EU that is the important place to block: the company who had stolen Equustek's technology seems to have fled to France, and was selling it in the EU.
Equustek did sue the proper defendant, who fled the country and is doing business (apparently in France). Google initially asked for the suit to be filed and agreed the take down links to the other company's sites, and agreement which the courts understood to be worldwide Google then remove the links in Canada, and not France. The court isued a temporary restraining order to get Google to take the sites down until Equustek and/or interpol could find the crooks and have the local French courts enforce the Canadian order.
The Supreme Court of Canada specifically asked Google to provide evidence that the case involved the blocking of speech, not just "commercial speech" (ie, ads). The US courts have not heard the matter, but have issues a temporary restraining order to restrain the temporary restraining order (;-))
If Google was strictly a US company that didn't do business in Canada, a Canadian court would send an order based on the outcome of the suit to the US, and ask them to enforce it there. In this case, Google is one company subject to two contradictory sets of laws, a much worse situation to be in.
That's a good description of the general case, but the Canadian one is actually about misuse of secrets, counterfeit hardware and fleeing to the EU to avoid prosecution. The law is distinctly fuzzier, with fewer and different treaties in play.
The gullible think that mobile is "the Internet". In fact, the intenet is something wonderfully nerdy...
Formed groups have "coalition" rights. It's not clear if they have the same rights as individuals, though... (in Canada)
The Judge said the information is sealed (cannot be disclosed to the public), and that he wants to see it. The crown can either pony up, or drop the case.
The reason the cops are withdrawing charges is because they don't want to allow the defence to make them provide evidence that exposes the stingrays.
Canadian law doesn't allow secret evidence. Even military secrets have to be entered into evidence, although that requires judges and lawyers with high levels of clearance.
Depending on your legal regime, signing a contract should not allow you or the other party to override statute law. That's a norm in common-law systems such as Britain, the United States and Canada.
For example, a clause making you promise to not report the software you bought was stolen is not enforcable (technically the clause prohibited discussing the asember code with anyone, but the reason was that it was recognizably a different company's product). We reported it, and the thief lost in court.
In Canada, the Supreme Court has overridden "choice of venue" and other anti-suit clauses, and allowed suits and charges to be laid in such cases.
At one point, Italy experimented with a "syndicalist" scheme in which companies in an industry elected a board, and each board sent a representative for their industry to a superior board. The larger experiment was called "fascism".
Actually Canada allows a negotiated breakup, as there is no law prohibiting it. It's treated a bit like a constitutional change. Quebec fell short of a simple majority in a referendum on whether to leave, so they're still "here".
It's cutting maintenance costs they like. A lot: they just laid off most of the Solarii.
Yes, and later change jobs to get OUT of manglement.
Think of the Regimental Sergeant Major. Of course he can take over when the Colonel has to take over the brigade, and the majors will obey him. After all, he trained them. Just don't expect he won't choose the best of the company commanders to take over when the battle is done.
It might also cut their maintenance costs, something Oracle often likes.
Some folks don't like the particular set of tradeoffs, but for a filesyste (as opposed to an object store, one of which I'm testing right now), it's a very good offering. I definitely want it on my Fedora dev laptop, along with a write cache on flash.
But like my login name, my face and my fingerprints are available to (almost) everyone. My password, on the other hand, is a secret that I and my phone know, and it exists so that other people with copies of my face or fingerprint or username can't just log in.
In fact, treat them the same way SMERSH kept trying to treat James Bond. Death To Spies!
My fingerprint is like my name: as anyone can "say" it, and it isn't secret, it's not a particularly good password (;-))
Even near-perfect facial recognition will fail with a large enough N and N(*(N-1) comparisons when you expect N (:-))