This is for those who say that soon US citizens will have domestic travel restrictions. You'll be happy to know that the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,* while long the laughing stock of the other Clauses for being largely read out of the Constitution entirely, was resurrected in 1999 by the Supreme Court for the very narrow purpose of, you guessed it, guaranteeing the right to travel. Any law passed by Congress that infringes this right would likely be found unconstitutional.**
* Not to be confused with the Privileges and Immunities Clause from Article IV.
** For those of you paying very close attention, the doctrine was revived in obiter dicta, at least insofar as it applies to travel between the States. Still, even under the rationale of the Slaughterhouse Cases, I think it likely that the Court would find this a fundamental right. Of course, we won't know for sure until and unless the law is passed and a case tried...
Good luck on your exam. I don't know where you are in your studies, but if you can take it over the summer, DO IT. You can do what I did and treat it like another (12 hour?!) class, but taking an/additional/ two back-to-back substantive finals stinks.
Word to the wise: don't try and memorize all the minor details, just learn where everything is located in the MPEP so you can look it up quickly during the test. You'll be so high on adrenaline that you won't remember it all anyway. Oh yeah, and pretty much everything in 700 and 2100 is major.
Had any of them voted against this resolution, they would have had to:
Care, and
Be in the room at the time the vote was called.
Likely, neither of these two things were true, because this resolution is just blowing smoke. Unanimous consent votes happen ALL THE TIME in Congress -- they're the equivalent of the chair asking whoever happens to be in the room (usually a small handful of Senators) "does anyone object to this". 99.9% of the time, no one objects, because it's not important enough to exercise the vocal chords.
Latest Major Action: 5/16/2007 Passed/agreed to in Senate.
Status: Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.
OK, so Lisa Murkowski (the other senator from Alaska, not this guy) introduced a bill which passed with unanimous consent. You know what that means? The chair asked if anyone objected, and no one spoke up. Entirely probable, since there were likely only three Senators in the room at the time, one of whom can't vote and one who introduced it in the first place.
Here is the entire text of the debate surrounding this bill, including the text of the bill itself, which seems to be aimed at "promoting awareness" of "online bullying."
Copyright law is crystal clear: in the absence of a license, you can't do a damn thing. The terms are take-or-leave. If you don't like the terms, you are always free to suck it up and use something else. No need for lawsuits or acrimonious emails. Just Say No. If you can't use something else, then build it. If you can't build it or buy it, then maybe you should consider another business model.
If the copy protection can be difficult enough to get around to not make it worth the average person's time, then they won't bother getting a pirated version.
Ah, but the harder it is to crack, the more likely it is that someone who takes the time to crack it will make the cracked version available to others for the ego boost. At which point, it's a simple download. The difficulty of the copy protection is only proportional to the length of time before anyone can download a cracked copy, not the difficulty of eventually obtaining a copy (which remains approximately zero).
Use spam gourmet. It's quick, easy, and you only have to give out your real email to one company. If they leak it, you know who did it. I've been using it forever, and it works great.
They will tell people which patents are being violated -- when they send cease & desist letters or file a lawsuit. There might be a case of laches, but it won't become a defense unless MS actually fails to sue for awhile for no good reason. We'll have to wait and see on that count -- they've got six years to file, although laches may cut into that. Equitable estoppel won't apply unless MS sends C&D letters to individuals or companies, instilling the apprehension of an imminent lawsuit, and THEN fails to sue, leading the company to (reasonably) assume that MS was just bluffing. AFAIK, MS hasn't sent any letters yet, they're just posturing.
On the other hand, MS may have "used in commerce any... false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which... in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of... another person's goods, services, or commercial activities." See here. Note to/. geeks: learn the words "Lanham Act" and "unfair competition." Oh wait, MS would never be guilty of unfair competition, what am I thinking...
Normal and sane are defined by psychologists and psychiatrists, so they're obviously normal and you're not. Thus, you need help, QED. Ha ha, only serious.
For the sarcasm impaired, the argument is circular, which is why it fails.
Simply stipulate that only "open" religions can be given these benefits. That is, only religions in which all the religious texts are freely reproducible and the religious services are open to anyone without payment, will be given full benefits.
Slight problem: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." As soon as you start favoring one religion over another, you get smacked down by the Supreme Court, and hard too. Look up Lemon v. Kurtzman, keeping in mind that even Thomas and Scalia are non-preferentialists.
There are already laws on the books which deal specifically with driver inattention.
Hooray, some common sense on/. for a change. Here's one law that might work: negligent driving in the second degree. If they started fining $250 for each time someone talked on their cell phone or texted while driving, people would stop doing it.
The problem with the new law is enforcement: if you don't enforce existing laws, why should anyone think you'll enforce new ones?
6) They find earth, the Cylons kick earth's ass, but Adama and the BSG crew head through the Stargate to the Alpha Site to begin construction on another Battlestar. O'Neill, Thor, and Oma Desala get cameos.
Extending the 4th amendment to phone lines is a reach.
I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. Not only that, but the case that extended the Fourth Amendment to prevent wiretapping phone lines without a warrant was a landmark ruling that shook constitutional law down to its roots. Here is Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). Since the case is not that long, I will quote it in nearly its entirety, only making minor adjustments. Read all of it, slowly and carefully. Then read it again.
=====
MR. JUSTICE STEWART delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioner (ed: Katz) was convicted in the District Court for the Southern District of California under an eight-count indictment charging him with transmitting wagering information by telephone from Los Angeles to Miami and Boston, in violation of a federal statute. At trial the Government was permitted, over the petitioner's objection, to introduce evidence of the petitioner's end of telephone conversations, overheard by FBI agents who had attached an electronic listening and recording device to the outside of the public telephone booth from which he had placed his calls. In affirming his conviction, the Court of Appeals rejected the contention that the recordings had been obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, because "[t]here was no physical entrance into the area occupied by [the petitioner]." We granted certiorari in order to consider the constitutional questions thus presented.
The petitioner has phrased those questions as follows:
"A. Whether a public telephone booth is a constitutionally protected area so that evidence obtained by attaching an electronic listening recording device to the top of such a booth is obtained in violation of the right to privacy of the user of the booth.
"B. Whether physical penetration of a constitutionally protected area is necessary before a search and seizure can be said to be violative of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution."
We decline to adopt this formulation of the issues. In the first place, the correct solution of Fourth Amendment problems is not necessarily promoted by incantation of the phrase "constitutionally protected area." Secondly, the Fourth Amendment cannot be translated into a general constitutional "right to privacy." That Amendment protects individual privacy against certain kinds of governmental intrusion, but its protections go further, and often have nothing to do with privacy at all. Other provisions of the Constitution protect personal privacy from other forms of governmental invasion. But the protection of a person's general right to privacy - his right to be let alone by other people - is, like the protection of his property and of his very life, left largely to the law of the individual States.
Because of the misleading way the issues have been formulated, the parties have attached great significance to the characterization of the telephone booth from which the petitioner placed his calls. The petitioner has strenuously argued that the booth was a "constitutionally protected area." The Government has maintained with equal vigor that it was not. But this effort to decide whether or not a given "area," viewed in the abstract, is "constitutionally protected" deflects attention from the problem presented by this case. For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.
The Government stresses the fact that the telephone booth from which the petitioner made his calls was constructed partly of glass, so that he was as visible after he entered it as he would have been if he had remained outside. But what he sought to exclude when he entered the booth was not the intruding eye - it was the uninvited ear.
Stop linking to Ars. They never provide links to the actual laws or court filings. As a result, any discussion here will be flawed, since it's based on second-hand editorializing at best. If you want to actually read the law, it's here.
The meat of it:
(1) IN GENERAL- Whoever engages in any conduct with intent to convey false or misleading information under circumstances where such information may reasonably be believed and where such information indicates that an activity has taken, is taking, or will take place that would constitute [a hoax] is liable in a civil action to any party incurring expenses incident to any emergency or investigative response to that conduct, for those expenses.
(2) EFFECT OF CONDUCT-
(A) IN GENERAL- A person described in subparagraph (B) is liable in a civil action to any party described in subparagraph (B)(ii) for any expenses that are incurred by that party--
(i) incident to any emergency or investigative response to any conduct described in subparagraph (B)(i); and
(ii) after the person that engaged in that conduct should have informed that party of the actual nature of the activity.
(B) APPLICABILITY- A person described in this subparagraph is any person that--
(i) engages in any conduct that has the effect of conveying false or misleading information under circumstances where such information may reasonably be believed to indicate that an activity has taken, is taking, or will take place that would constitute [a hoax];
(ii) receives actual notice that another party is taking emergency or investigative action because that party believes that the information indicates that an activity has taken, is taking, or will take place that would constitute [a hoax]; and
(iii) after receiving such notice, fails to promptly and reasonably inform 1 or more parties described in clause (ii) of the actual nature of the activity.
The difference is that everyone is entitled to legal representation. You may not be able to find a programmer to help you, but you will find a lawyer to help you. It doesn't matter if you're rich or poor, good or evil, tan or brown or yellow, you can get a lawyer. If no one will take a case, the court will appoint someone, who will represent that client to the best of their abilities no matter how distasteful it is. You would get the chance to turn down Saddam Hussein as a boss -- think about how much it would suck if you couldn't. And lawyers are given a sacred trust -- they have to swear an oath before God and a Supreme Court before taking office.
As for the rules lawyers have to live with, here's the baseline (different states adopt different rules). They're long as hell, self-contradictory, and if you break them just once, a disciplinary committee can put you out of a job, permanently. So no, lawyers can't just "refuse to do stupid crap" as you put it.
But if ruining a client's image and reputation, and often turning it into a laughingstock is done in the name of "protecting," then perhaps the legal profession should reconsider whether it's being counterproductive.
The legal profession has thought about it, John -- long and hard. And the conclusion is that lawyers are servants, not masters. That's the way it is, and that's the way it must be. If the master wants to jump off a cliff, the servant has no right whatsoever to interfere, because it's not his call to make. He'll tell you not to jump, beg with you, plead, but at the end of the day all he can do is follow your orders, send out cease-and-desist letters, and watch as the PR disaster sends you plummeting to the rocks below.
Slashdot Mirror
* Not to be confused with the Privileges and Immunities Clause from Article IV.
** For those of you paying very close attention, the doctrine was revived in obiter dicta, at least insofar as it applies to travel between the States. Still, even under the rationale of the Slaughterhouse Cases, I think it likely that the Court would find this a fundamental right. Of course, we won't know for sure until and unless the law is passed and a case tried...
Word to the wise: don't try and memorize all the minor details, just learn where everything is located in the MPEP so you can look it up quickly during the test. You'll be so high on adrenaline that you won't remember it all anyway. Oh yeah, and pretty much everything in 700 and 2100 is major.
Shhh don't tell him about the invisible tubes in the sky...
Then Verizon shouldn't have any problem getting the patent invalidated, in light of KSR v. Teleflex. Or is the poster suffering from hindsight bias?
Your proposal screws small inventors (even more than they are already).
WERNSTROM: I give you the worst grade imaginable, an A minus minus!
- Care, and
- Be in the room at the time the vote was called.
Likely, neither of these two things were true, because this resolution is just blowing smoke. Unanimous consent votes happen ALL THE TIME in Congress -- they're the equivalent of the chair asking whoever happens to be in the room (usually a small handful of Senators) "does anyone object to this". 99.9% of the time, no one objects, because it's not important enough to exercise the vocal chords.Here is the entire text of the debate surrounding this bill, including the text of the bill itself, which seems to be aimed at "promoting awareness" of "online bullying."
Copyright law is crystal clear: in the absence of a license, you can't do a damn thing. The terms are take-or-leave. If you don't like the terms, you are always free to suck it up and use something else. No need for lawsuits or acrimonious emails. Just Say No. If you can't use something else, then build it. If you can't build it or buy it, then maybe you should consider another business model.
Use spam gourmet. It's quick, easy, and you only have to give out your real email to one company. If they leak it, you know who did it. I've been using it forever, and it works great.
The RIAA is waging a war, yes?
I'm technically competent and I was just on a jury, along with a former FBI agent and a college student. It happens more often than you think.
Expect more applications to get section 103 "obviousness" rejections, in the wake of KSR v. Teleflex.
On the other hand, MS may have "used in commerce any ... false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which ... in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of ... another person's goods, services, or commercial activities." See here. Note to /. geeks: learn the words "Lanham Act" and "unfair competition." Oh wait, MS would never be guilty of unfair competition, what am I thinking...
For the sarcasm impaired, the argument is circular, which is why it fails.
The problem with the new law is enforcement: if you don't enforce existing laws, why should anyone think you'll enforce new ones?
6) They find earth, the Cylons kick earth's ass, but Adama and the BSG crew head through the Stargate to the Alpha Site to begin construction on another Battlestar. O'Neill, Thor, and Oma Desala get cameos.
Hey, it could happen.
I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. Not only that, but the case that extended the Fourth Amendment to prevent wiretapping phone lines without a warrant was a landmark ruling that shook constitutional law down to its roots. Here is Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). Since the case is not that long, I will quote it in nearly its entirety, only making minor adjustments. Read all of it, slowly and carefully. Then read it again.
=====
MR. JUSTICE STEWART delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioner (ed: Katz) was convicted in the District Court for the Southern District of California under an eight-count indictment charging him with transmitting wagering information by telephone from Los Angeles to Miami and Boston, in violation of a federal statute. At trial the Government was permitted, over the petitioner's objection, to introduce evidence of the petitioner's end of telephone conversations, overheard by FBI agents who had attached an electronic listening and recording device to the outside of the public telephone booth from which he had placed his calls. In affirming his conviction, the Court of Appeals rejected the contention that the recordings had been obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, because "[t]here was no physical entrance into the area occupied by [the petitioner]." We granted certiorari in order to consider the constitutional questions thus presented.
The petitioner has phrased those questions as follows:
"A. Whether a public telephone booth is a constitutionally protected area so that evidence obtained by attaching an electronic listening recording device to the top of such a booth is obtained in violation of the right to privacy of the user of the booth.
"B. Whether physical penetration of a constitutionally protected area is necessary before a search and seizure can be said to be violative of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution."
We decline to adopt this formulation of the issues. In the first place, the correct solution of Fourth Amendment problems is not necessarily promoted by incantation of the phrase "constitutionally protected area." Secondly, the Fourth Amendment cannot be translated into a general constitutional "right to privacy." That Amendment protects individual privacy against certain kinds of governmental intrusion, but its protections go further, and often have nothing to do with privacy at all. Other provisions of the Constitution protect personal privacy from other forms of governmental invasion. But the protection of a person's general right to privacy - his right to be let alone by other people - is, like the protection of his property and of his very life, left largely to the law of the individual States.
Because of the misleading way the issues have been formulated, the parties have attached great significance to the characterization of the telephone booth from which the petitioner placed his calls. The petitioner has strenuously argued that the booth was a "constitutionally protected area." The Government has maintained with equal vigor that it was not. But this effort to decide whether or not a given "area," viewed in the abstract, is "constitutionally protected" deflects attention from the problem presented by this case. For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.
The Government stresses the fact that the telephone booth from which the petitioner made his calls was constructed partly of glass, so that he was as visible after he entered it as he would have been if he had remained outside. But what he sought to exclude when he entered the booth was not the intruding eye - it was the uninvited ear.
As for "litigious nonsense", that's just name calling. What, exactly, is your argument?
The meat of it:
Discuss.Maybe he could quit, maybe he couldn't. Read this, especially 1.16(c). Also, read this.
As for the rules lawyers have to live with, here's the baseline (different states adopt different rules). They're long as hell, self-contradictory, and if you break them just once, a disciplinary committee can put you out of a job, permanently. So no, lawyers can't just "refuse to do stupid crap" as you put it.