Justice Marshall, I must have missed the day at law school where they taught us we had the right under the Constitution to do anything not expressly prohibbited.
This so called freedom to speak annonymously is a logical fallacy; the question is whether an intermediary can choose not to disclose one's identity. Generally speaking, they cannot, but the Courts can compell it. Nothing in the Constitution protects you from that.
where in the Constitution does it give us the right to speak annonymously? It doesn't and it shouldn't.
The only way you can speak annonymously is to speak through others. You should have no expectation that the other person will not be compelled to reveal your identity.
against patent litigants. Patent litigation is not in and of itself an immoral, evil, or destructive enterprise. Forum shopping occurs in every type of litigation and in other decisions such as where to build industrial facilities and locate other commercial endeavors.
Slashdot readers should stop becoming so enraged over lawsuits and let the system work. The time to get upset is when a case has been through the system and has still ended with the disagreed with result.
A substantial liklihood of success is one of the factors looked at by a judge in granting a preliminary injunction. That is, Microsoft must have put on a colorable claim that this work would fall within the non-compete agreement.
Other factors are potential for irreperable harm and lack of an adequate legal remedy (i.e. money damages won't do).
the legal writer and thinker, pointed out that the "bad man" has just as much reason as the good man to avoid confrontations with the law. "A man who cares nothing for an ethical rule which is believed and practised by his neighbors is likely nevertheless to care a good deal to avoid being made to pay money, and will want to keep out of jail if he can." Holmes thought that all laws should be constructed with this man in mind.
Obviously, code must be constructed with the bad man in mind as well. We can lay the blame on the hacker, but is it his fault we wrote bad code?
I've seen reviews of a dual core system from Dell, which is apparently not available on the website.
Anybody got any suggestions or recommendations on available dual core systems or motherboards?
Is this diplomatic work? I think you are stretching this quite a bit.
These individuals actually represent the companies they work for, i.e. Nokia, Qualcomm, and not the "United States" at these meetings. No fair minded person thinks these individuals speak for the U.S. Government.
It is one thing to reward those that support you, but it is another to punish those that do not. That is not a democratic process.
Maybe someone needs to invent a click-through email license. Microsoft will probably produce it and thereby force all recievers to install spyware and viruses on their computers to read email.
This act cannot be 2nd degree murder. This charge requires the intention to kill. He must have purposefully driven over or into another person with the intention to cause bodily injury.
I'm not sure what the particular laws of Alaska are, but this charge clearly should be negligent homicide, negligent homicide, or dropped entirely. Is this much different from people who read books in the car? They have wrecks, but aren't charged with murder.
not to hear MOST cases, but the fact that it doesn't hear a case is a tacit affirmation of the lower courts ruling.
You do have a right to appeal every case to the circuit court.
...to go around, but Ken Brown will take home more than his fair share for this one. For a person in his position, credibility is necessary for him to continue to recieve grants from people like Microsoft. They may be willing to give money to a hack, but not a discredited, proven hack.
1) Equitable principles such as the doctrine of laches require that you protect your rights in a timely manner.
2) As a patent holder, you hold a legal monopoly on your invention. However, that does not mean that any monopolistic behavior you engage in will not result in breaking the antitrust rules.
If you allow your intellectual property to be used with your knowledge without protecting or reserving your rights, then you risk waiving your ability to assert your rights against anybody.
If you've known you had a case but did not bring suit and allowed your damages to mount, your suit is barred by the doctrine of laches.
They would have a good argument based on this to either dismiss the suit or severely limit their damage award, assuming the validity of the patent, which I'm not.
about being beaten through competion, actually get out there and compete.
When they can do it just as well for less, no rational mind can deny the reasonableness of it.
Why should America be the only country with a middle class?
you have a lot of people making web pages that display their opinions. Enough are out there to make a difference on Google. What is wrong with that? Seems to me like it is working perfectly.
are simply an attempt to raise money by threatening legal action. Many companies will settle and buy the license before they spend the money on their lawyers.
Many point out that these cases look like losers and they are. Just remember that ritht now winning these cases is not the point for SCO. They have no intention of taking these cases to trial.
that the UNIX code base was released to the public years ago.
My guess is that maybe they think that if they act like what they have is worth something, eventually they can trick somebody into believing it and paying for it.
Slashdot Mirror
so how should writers be compesated for the books they write? By performing readings of their works around the country?
or he may have shot and killed the defense attorneys.
Justice Marshall, I must have missed the day at law school where they taught us we had the right under the Constitution to do anything not expressly prohibbited. This so called freedom to speak annonymously is a logical fallacy; the question is whether an intermediary can choose not to disclose one's identity. Generally speaking, they cannot, but the Courts can compell it. Nothing in the Constitution protects you from that.
where in the Constitution does it give us the right to speak annonymously? It doesn't and it shouldn't. The only way you can speak annonymously is to speak through others. You should have no expectation that the other person will not be compelled to reveal your identity.
against patent litigants. Patent litigation is not in and of itself an immoral, evil, or destructive enterprise. Forum shopping occurs in every type of litigation and in other decisions such as where to build industrial facilities and locate other commercial endeavors. Slashdot readers should stop becoming so enraged over lawsuits and let the system work. The time to get upset is when a case has been through the system and has still ended with the disagreed with result.
this reminds me of Bill Gates decision to raise his Charisma to 25.
A substantial liklihood of success is one of the factors looked at by a judge in granting a preliminary injunction. That is, Microsoft must have put on a colorable claim that this work would fall within the non-compete agreement. Other factors are potential for irreperable harm and lack of an adequate legal remedy (i.e. money damages won't do).
Excellent suggestion. I feel an cheap system running OpenBSD is sufficient for most people out there as long as you can administer it.
the legal writer and thinker, pointed out that the "bad man" has just as much reason as the good man to avoid confrontations with the law. "A man who cares nothing for an ethical rule which is believed and practised by his neighbors is likely nevertheless to care a good deal to avoid being made to pay money, and will want to keep out of jail if he can." Holmes thought that all laws should be constructed with this man in mind. Obviously, code must be constructed with the bad man in mind as well. We can lay the blame on the hacker, but is it his fault we wrote bad code?
I've seen reviews of a dual core system from Dell, which is apparently not available on the website. Anybody got any suggestions or recommendations on available dual core systems or motherboards?
Is this diplomatic work? I think you are stretching this quite a bit. These individuals actually represent the companies they work for, i.e. Nokia, Qualcomm, and not the "United States" at these meetings. No fair minded person thinks these individuals speak for the U.S. Government. It is one thing to reward those that support you, but it is another to punish those that do not. That is not a democratic process.
...I've heard similar stories as urban legends. Has this really been confirmed?
Maybe someone needs to invent a click-through email license. Microsoft will probably produce it and thereby force all recievers to install spyware and viruses on their computers to read email.
This act cannot be 2nd degree murder. This charge requires the intention to kill. He must have purposefully driven over or into another person with the intention to cause bodily injury. I'm not sure what the particular laws of Alaska are, but this charge clearly should be negligent homicide, negligent homicide, or dropped entirely. Is this much different from people who read books in the car? They have wrecks, but aren't charged with murder.
to plant an exploit when there are so many already existing to be discovered?
not to hear MOST cases, but the fact that it doesn't hear a case is a tacit affirmation of the lower courts ruling. You do have a right to appeal every case to the circuit court.
...to go around, but Ken Brown will take home more than his fair share for this one. For a person in his position, credibility is necessary for him to continue to recieve grants from people like Microsoft. They may be willing to give money to a hack, but not a discredited, proven hack.
1) Equitable principles such as the doctrine of laches require that you protect your rights in a timely manner. 2) As a patent holder, you hold a legal monopoly on your invention. However, that does not mean that any monopolistic behavior you engage in will not result in breaking the antitrust rules.
If you allow your intellectual property to be used with your knowledge without protecting or reserving your rights, then you risk waiving your ability to assert your rights against anybody.
If you've known you had a case but did not bring suit and allowed your damages to mount, your suit is barred by the doctrine of laches. They would have a good argument based on this to either dismiss the suit or severely limit their damage award, assuming the validity of the patent, which I'm not.
rather than the limitations of the spreadsheet?
about being beaten through competion, actually get out there and compete. When they can do it just as well for less, no rational mind can deny the reasonableness of it. Why should America be the only country with a middle class?
you have a lot of people making web pages that display their opinions. Enough are out there to make a difference on Google. What is wrong with that? Seems to me like it is working perfectly.
are simply an attempt to raise money by threatening legal action. Many companies will settle and buy the license before they spend the money on their lawyers. Many point out that these cases look like losers and they are. Just remember that ritht now winning these cases is not the point for SCO. They have no intention of taking these cases to trial.
that the UNIX code base was released to the public years ago. My guess is that maybe they think that if they act like what they have is worth something, eventually they can trick somebody into believing it and paying for it.