Here are some more:
http://news.cnet.com/Police-blotter-Teens-prosecuted-for-racy-photos/2100-1030_3-6157857.html
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sfl-sexting-030809,0,2010500.story http://www.boingboing.net/2007/02/20/teen-couple-who-phot.html http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-Liberties-Examiner~y2009m1d14-Teens-charged-with-child-pornography--for-photos-of-themselves (I believe this is the one that was discussed on/.) There are tons of these cases.
Well it took over 8 months into the Bush administration before a war took place, and I think most Americans were behind him in it. So give the big Hussein some more time there buddy.
All Red Hat really needs to do is publish the inventions instead of patenting them. That would create prior art. That doesn't always work however because patent examiners have little time to do prior art searches and often just rely on what the inventor supplies them with. Then if they do searches, they usually only search patents and patent applications. Once a patent is granted, it is given a presumption of validity and it is very costly for a defendant to overcome that presumption even when you have prior art that is directly on point.
Prison time is generally viewed (at least by economists) as a deterrent. It helps deter others from committing the same crimes. Same deal with capital punishment.
You may be right but the good part about a radar system that is at 65,000 feet is that it can be a long long ways from the battlefield. Any aircraft that started heading towards the blimp would most likely be intercepted before it got anywhere near it. The Global Hawk flies around that same altitude and it can see a very long way. This blimp will most likely carry a radar that is much larger with much greater capability.
I used to work for a defense contractor and I can say that a lot of nerds work at Air Force Research Labs. Among them though were many contractors. It seemed like a fun place to work because most of the projects were prototypish and had small teams so you could make a lot of important decisions without having to get 15 signatures. I found that a huge problem with working for a defense contractor (and probably even in the military) is that most people end up getting stuck on a large and well funded project that is micro-managed beyond belief and has a terrible bureaucratic problem.
A simple drive across I-75 will help you realize they are not endangered. They can be seen about every 25-50 yards on the side of the highway in the canals. They are EVERYWHERE.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designates it as Endangered, or in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The primary threat to this animal comes from habitat loss.
There are over 1.5 million alligators in Florida. The species has not been on the endangered list since 1987. From the PDF at link you provided: "In 1987, the Fish and Wildlife Service pronounced the American alligator fully recovered
and consequently removed the animal from the list of endangered species." The state of Florida allows 5500 to be harvested a year. It is clear that it is time to up the limit.
The state should really increase the number of alligators that can be hunted each year. This document(PDF) says the FL alligator population was 1.5 million in 2005. Florida only allows 5500 to be harvested a year. Note that it also says 334 attacks and 14 fatalities.
For some reason this posted anonymously when I tried a minute ago. Here it is again:
Don't believe everything you read on wikipedia. Have you read the ProCD case? If this isn't a general ruling then I don't know what is...
EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. Must buyers of computer software obey the terms of shrinkwrap licenses? The [*1449] district court held not, for two reasons: first, they are not contracts because the licenses are inside the box rather than printed on the outside; second, federal law forbids enforcement even if the licenses are contracts. 908 F. Supp. 640 (W.D. Wis. 1996). The parties and numerous amici curiae have briefed many other issues, but these are the only two that matter--and we disagree with the district judge's conclusion on each. Shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms are objectionable on grounds applicable to contracts in general (for example, if they violate a rule of positive law, or if they are unconscionable). Because no one argues that the terms of the license at issue here are troublesome, we remand with instructions to enter judgment for the plaintiff.
In Wisconsin, as elsewhere, HN2Go to the description of this Headnote.a contract includes only the terms on which the parties have agreed. One cannot agree to hidden terms, the judge concluded. So far, so good--but one of the terms to which Zeidenberg agreed by purchasing the software is that the transaction was subject to a license. Zeidenberg's position therefore must be that the printed terms on the outside of a box are the parties' contract--except for printed terms that refer to or incorporate other terms. But why would Wisconsin fetter the parties' choice in this [*1451] way? Vendors can put the entire terms of a contract on the outside of a box only by using microscopic type, removing other information that buyers might find more useful (such as what the software does, and on which computers it works), or both. The "Read Me" file included with most software, describing system requirements and potential incompatibilities, may be equivalent to ten pages of type; warranties and license restrictions take still more space. Notice on the outside, terms on the inside, and a right to return the software for a refund if the terms are [**10] unacceptable (a right that the license expressly extends), may be a means of doing business valuable to buyers and sellers alike. See E. Allan Farnsworth, 1 Farnsworth on Contracts  4.26 (1990); Restatement (2d) of Contracts  211 comment a (1981) ("Standardization of agreements serves many of the same functions as standardization of goods and services; both are essential to a system of mass production and distribution. Scarce and costly time and skill can be devoted to a class of transactions rather than the details of individual transactions."). Doubtless a state could forbid the use of standard contracts in the software business, but we do not think that Wisconsin has done so.
Consumer goods work the same way. Someone who wants to buy a radio set visits a store, pays, and walks out with a box. Inside the box is a leaflet containing some terms, the most important of which usually is the warranty, read for the first time in the comfort of home. By Zeidenberg's lights, the warranty in the box is irrelevant; every consumer gets the standard warranty implied by the UCC in the event the contract is silent; yet so far as we are aware no state disregards warranties furnished with consumer products. Drugs come with a list of ingredients on the outside and an elaborate package insert on the inside. The package insert describes drug interactions, contraindications, and other vital information--but, if Zeidenberg is right, the purchaser need not read the package insert, because it is not part of the contract.
Next consider the software industry itself. Only a minority of sales take place over the counter, where there are boxes to peruse. A customer pay place an order by phone in response to a line item in a catalog or a review in a magazine
I've tried to numerous times here. I am about to give up. Even those who are pointed to the cases respond with emotional arguments while they ignore what the cases actually say. Here is an example of someone responding to me with emotion and arguments that make it clear he does not understand contract law: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1132537&cid=26906351 He tries to argue that he can "bypass" a EULA and then ignores my notification that he would then be violating copyright law.
Yes, that list does say some courts have ruled against EULAs but you have to understand that those are quite old (1991 for one of them) and the facts may have been different enough where the enforceability of a EULA's in general is not exactly what was ruled on. You can also see that the author of that section left out the citation when s/he stated that "most other circuits do not" subscribe to the "licensed and sold" argument. I don't think every circuit has heard a EULA case and when that happens, the 7th Circuit's ruling will most likely carry heavy weight.
The typical argument around here is that EULAs are never enforceable. The one I love most is: "No signature! No contract!" That is just pure ignorance of contract law. These people might like to know that almost every case in a first year law school course involves contracts that had no signature.
This is probably the last time I'll get involved in this discussion here. People don't want to listen to what the law really is. It's not my problem if they want to subject themselves and their companies to the $250,000 per violation statutory damages for copyright violations.
Yea well that doesn't apply in the U.S. The first sale doctrine doesn't apply because it's a license, not a sale. I love how the post above mine gets +3 insightful for saying EULAs have never been tested in court. That is pure ignorance of case law.
Slashdot Mirror
Here are some more: /.) There are tons of these cases.
http://news.cnet.com/Police-blotter-Teens-prosecuted-for-racy-photos/2100-1030_3-6157857.html
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sfl-sexting-030809,0,2010500.story
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/02/20/teen-couple-who-phot.html
http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-Liberties-Examiner~y2009m1d14-Teens-charged-with-child-pornography--for-photos-of-themselves (I believe this is the one that was discussed on
Open Source Government.
Kinda tough to have that when even copyright law proposals are being labeled as matters of national security.
Well it took over 8 months into the Bush administration before a war took place, and I think most Americans were behind him in it. So give the big Hussein some more time there buddy.
The legal system has a habit of assuming that an issued patent is valid by default
It's not just a habit, it's law:
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/35usc/282.html
Section 282. Presumption of validity; defenses
A patent shall be presumed valid...
All Red Hat really needs to do is publish the inventions instead of patenting them. That would create prior art. That doesn't always work however because patent examiners have little time to do prior art searches and often just rely on what the inventor supplies them with. Then if they do searches, they usually only search patents and patent applications. Once a patent is granted, it is given a presumption of validity and it is very costly for a defendant to overcome that presumption even when you have prior art that is directly on point.
It looks like Global Hawks are being upgraded to the MP-RTIP radar, which you can be sure is extremely better than what the U2 had (has?). http://www.satnews.com/cgi-bin/story.cgi?number=72692412 MP-RTIP info here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/mp-rtip.htm I am pretty sure that MP-RTIP details are classified so you probably can't find many technical details online about it.
Prison time is generally viewed (at least by economists) as a deterrent. It helps deter others from committing the same crimes. Same deal with capital punishment.
You may be right but the good part about a radar system that is at 65,000 feet is that it can be a long long ways from the battlefield. Any aircraft that started heading towards the blimp would most likely be intercepted before it got anywhere near it. The Global Hawk flies around that same altitude and it can see a very long way. This blimp will most likely carry a radar that is much larger with much greater capability.
I used to work for a defense contractor and I can say that a lot of nerds work at Air Force Research Labs. Among them though were many contractors. It seemed like a fun place to work because most of the projects were prototypish and had small teams so you could make a lot of important decisions without having to get 15 signatures. I found that a huge problem with working for a defense contractor (and probably even in the military) is that most people end up getting stuck on a large and well funded project that is micro-managed beyond belief and has a terrible bureaucratic problem.
unwritten social contract????? HA! What a fucking joke.
Patents already have a utility requirement. The PTO and courts have pretty much ignored that requirement though.
Would it be irony if their book was copyrighted? ;)
You don't have a choice in the U.S. to not copyright your works. It is automatic.
Yea. That's called marriage.
Yes i understand. I didn't read clearly.
I meant to say "a drive across I-75 in south Florida." There is a reason it is called "Alligator Alley."
A simple drive across I-75 will help you realize they are not endangered. They can be seen about every 25-50 yards on the side of the highway in the canals. They are EVERYWHERE.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designates it as Endangered, or in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The primary threat to this animal comes from habitat loss.
There are over 1.5 million alligators in Florida. The species has not been on the endangered list since 1987. From the PDF at link you provided: "In 1987, the Fish and Wildlife Service pronounced the American alligator fully recovered and consequently removed the animal from the list of endangered species." The state of Florida allows 5500 to be harvested a year. It is clear that it is time to up the limit.
I think you replied to the wrong guy...?
The state should really increase the number of alligators that can be hunted each year. This document(PDF) says the FL alligator population was 1.5 million in 2005. Florida only allows 5500 to be harvested a year. Note that it also says 334 attacks and 14 fatalities.
When all else fails, sue everyone!
How does browsing a last.fm profile that the user made public have anything to do with the 4th Amendment?
Good luck arguing that to a court. Maybe you need to go back to that "You Are Not a Lawyer" post from a couple weeks ago.
For some reason this posted anonymously when I tried a minute ago. Here it is again:
Don't believe everything you read on wikipedia. Have you read the ProCD case? If this isn't a general ruling then I don't know what is...
EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. Must buyers of computer software obey the terms of shrinkwrap licenses? The [*1449] district court held not, for two reasons: first, they are not contracts because the licenses are inside the box rather than printed on the outside; second, federal law forbids enforcement even if the licenses are contracts. 908 F. Supp. 640 (W.D. Wis. 1996). The parties and numerous amici curiae have briefed many other issues, but these are the only two that matter--and we disagree with the district judge's conclusion on each. Shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms are objectionable on grounds applicable to contracts in general (for example, if they violate a rule of positive law, or if they are unconscionable). Because no one argues that the terms of the license at issue here are troublesome, we remand with instructions to enter judgment for the plaintiff. In Wisconsin, as elsewhere, HN2Go to the description of this Headnote.a contract includes only the terms on which the parties have agreed. One cannot agree to hidden terms, the judge concluded. So far, so good--but one of the terms to which Zeidenberg agreed by purchasing the software is that the transaction was subject to a license. Zeidenberg's position therefore must be that the printed terms on the outside of a box are the parties' contract--except for printed terms that refer to or incorporate other terms. But why would Wisconsin fetter the parties' choice in this [*1451] way? Vendors can put the entire terms of a contract on the outside of a box only by using microscopic type, removing other information that buyers might find more useful (such as what the software does, and on which computers it works), or both. The "Read Me" file included with most software, describing system requirements and potential incompatibilities, may be equivalent to ten pages of type; warranties and license restrictions take still more space. Notice on the outside, terms on the inside, and a right to return the software for a refund if the terms are [**10] unacceptable (a right that the license expressly extends), may be a means of doing business valuable to buyers and sellers alike. See E. Allan Farnsworth, 1 Farnsworth on Contracts  4.26 (1990); Restatement (2d) of Contracts  211 comment a (1981) ("Standardization of agreements serves many of the same functions as standardization of goods and services; both are essential to a system of mass production and distribution. Scarce and costly time and skill can be devoted to a class of transactions rather than the details of individual transactions."). Doubtless a state could forbid the use of standard contracts in the software business, but we do not think that Wisconsin has done so. Consumer goods work the same way. Someone who wants to buy a radio set visits a store, pays, and walks out with a box. Inside the box is a leaflet containing some terms, the most important of which usually is the warranty, read for the first time in the comfort of home. By Zeidenberg's lights, the warranty in the box is irrelevant; every consumer gets the standard warranty implied by the UCC in the event the contract is silent; yet so far as we are aware no state disregards warranties furnished with consumer products. Drugs come with a list of ingredients on the outside and an elaborate package insert on the inside. The package insert describes drug interactions, contraindications, and other vital information--but, if Zeidenberg is right, the purchaser need not read the package insert, because it is not part of the contract. Next consider the software industry itself. Only a minority of sales take place over the counter, where there are boxes to peruse. A customer pay place an order by phone in response to a line item in a catalog or a review in a magazine
I've tried to numerous times here. I am about to give up. Even those who are pointed to the cases respond with emotional arguments while they ignore what the cases actually say. Here is an example of someone responding to me with emotion and arguments that make it clear he does not understand contract law: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1132537&cid=26906351 He tries to argue that he can "bypass" a EULA and then ignores my notification that he would then be violating copyright law.
A small list of cases can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EULA#Enforceability
Yes, that list does say some courts have ruled against EULAs but you have to understand that those are quite old (1991 for one of them) and the facts may have been different enough where the enforceability of a EULA's in general is not exactly what was ruled on. You can also see that the author of that section left out the citation when s/he stated that "most other circuits do not" subscribe to the "licensed and sold" argument. I don't think every circuit has heard a EULA case and when that happens, the 7th Circuit's ruling will most likely carry heavy weight.
The typical argument around here is that EULAs are never enforceable. The one I love most is: "No signature! No contract!" That is just pure ignorance of contract law. These people might like to know that almost every case in a first year law school course involves contracts that had no signature.
This is probably the last time I'll get involved in this discussion here. People don't want to listen to what the law really is. It's not my problem if they want to subject themselves and their companies to the $250,000 per violation statutory damages for copyright violations.
Yea well that doesn't apply in the U.S. The first sale doctrine doesn't apply because it's a license, not a sale. I love how the post above mine gets +3 insightful for saying EULAs have never been tested in court. That is pure ignorance of case law.