Additionally, in this case the plaintiff presented NO EVIDENCE that the source code was copied. Since the plaintiff presented NO evidence on the key question of the case, shouldn't the defendant win by default. Yes, they should, the judge ruled.
So why bother with juries in civil trials if the judge can over-rule them arbitrarily and capriciously?
They were presented evidence that they were sufficiently similar to meet the legal standard. But the judge retro-actively (and essentially secretly) excluded that evidence without warning, then appointed himself jury of the evidence and re-tried it with himself as judge, laywer, and jury.
Not sure what the deal is with all the hate here in the thread. Isn't the Slashdot groupthink supposed to say that anything that exposes people to computers and programming is a good thing?
We are also generally pro-education, and a non-human language isn't a language, as part of language is understanding those who speak it, and there's none of that with a computer language. At least the only common dead language is the basis for most of the western languages, and heavily used in medicine and law, so it has direct ancillary uses.
I covered those in English in public schools in the US. Perhaps it was the level/quality of the education, and not the subject, that was the differentiator.
The best thing from a language is that it gives understanding into the culture. Some languages even lack a direct translation for "no" because of the politeness in the culture, no need was formed for the direct (and impolite) response. That's hard to conceive in English, but does exist.
Frankly, the fact alone that you're posting such a bullshit about someone you know nothing about shows what's wrong with Internet comment systems.
So you've never heard of anyone buying a pack of pre-printed contracts or downloading them off the Internet and having success (mainly luck that nothing bad happened, not related to the quality of the contract itself) who later brags about how they can write contracts, and law is easy and all that?
Your sheltered life doesn't make for a very solid basis for an argument.
Look, you're obviously not a pilot, so you really don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Why are you being so angry?
Almost no one finds out in their first flight if they're able to do it or not. It takes many flights for normal pilots to get good at it.
People often decide in their introductory flight whether they hate it, or can't live without it. Yes, some who decide they can't live without it might never be good at it, but often those who don't have the touch will scare themselves enough on the first flight that they'll come to the correct conclusion.
Lots of aspiring pilots spend tens of thousands of dollars trying to learn to fly before they finally give up because they realize they're never going to be to master it enough to pass their check rides.
And I've seen the TV series about drivers who have been on learner licenses for years, and can't pass the driving test for a full license. Yes, there are plenty of people who just won't be able to do it.
If you aren't controlled enough in your movements, you'll never be able to hover an R22. You might be able to keep it relatively close to a fixed point, but the constant over-corrections will result in the closeness never being within a "pass". Learning the calm is hard. People know after an intro ride whether they had any aptitude for it, or would be forcing a square peg in a round hole. Of course, that does't stop the non-introspective from spending $20,000 before realizing the answer that was clear to the instructor on the first flight.
So Darwinism? You don't think there'd be a huge public outcry if tens of thousands of people started dying in helicopter training?
So what's your objection. You claim that if everyone were to fly, then there'd be mass death. When I'm agreeing with you, but pointing out that there wouldn't be "mass death by licensed pilots" because those that unsafe would be identified in the training stage, you disagree with me. Why do you disagree with me when I agree with you? Are you mad at yourself, and arguing with yourself?
You don't think I'm a pilot. But you are wrong. I'm not going to scan my logbook and email it to you, so I have no way of proving anything, so I'm sure you'll take your incorrect opinion over the correct reality. I hope you aren't a pilot.
No, it couldn't. The husband is the father, unless proven otherwise. Only because they were both female did anyone care. If the non-participating partner was a male, married to the mother, he would have been listed as "father" on the birth certificate, and nobody would have suspected or sought out anyone else.
Sure it matters. If a married couple has a kid, the husband is the father, unless proven otherwise, and even then, still sometimes is still the legal father. Here, the lesbians tried to claim two parents, but the government said "nope, dad must have a penis," And refused parenthood to the other mother. That one anti-lesbian move is what caused the rest to get to where it is.
Others have mentioned that they coudn't get the actual code to look at and compare, so they did an expert analysis to help analyze the gameplay, without focusing on the cosmetic changes.
You've obviously not played many sports games. The play is vastly different between some (at least it was back when the first few of these games in question were out - I don't play sports games, but have plenty of friends who did then). Some were so different that when you played one game, you'd try to pass every time. The gameplay favored the pass. Others you'd run every time. The gameplay greatly favored the run. Those types of things would be the "mechanics" that would demonstrate a basis from the previous game.
It is not up to the defense to prove they didn't copy. It is up to the plaintiff to prove that they did.
The jury thinks the plaintiff did.
When the plaintiff bungles, don't expect the defendant in an adversarial system to set up the correct test to save the plaintiff's behind. Instead, expect the defense to file motions claiming that the plaintiff bungled it. As happened here.
The failure wasn't on the part of the plaintiff. It was on the part of the judge.
IANAL, and since your advice is so awful, you should probably disclaim it too
What's to disclaim? No party of this suit is reading this, so nobody else could possibly take this as legal advice. And the only people who need to disclaim are actual lawyers. Laymen are allowed to give incorrect legal advice as much as they want, as long as they aren't in a commercial arrangement with the other party.
It is always up to the party who initiates the lawsuit to either prove without reasonable doubt (in criminal law) or to show preponderance of evidence (civil law).
An expert saying "The answer is cactus" and the defense saying nothing would lead to a finding (in civil) that the answer is cactus. With one witness, one word, and no response, the answer will always be for the plaintiff. That's how preponderance should (and does) work.
The failure here is that the appellate judge ruled that when you exclude the witness he thinks should have been excluded, that there wasn't enough presented to find for the plaintiff. The problem is that hearings are living things. The next question depends on the answer of the one before. So when the lower court (allegedly) improperly allowed the testimony, there was no reason to follow that witness with other corroborating evidence. Had the witness been excluded at the time, the trial would certainly have gone differently. So the appellate judge shouldn't have overturned it, but ruled on a point of law (the expert not being allowed), and returned the case to the lower court for a re-trial. Hopefully the plaintiff has sufficient pockets to file that brief at the next level up.
What they should have done was for the mother to name the female partner as the "father" on the birth certificate. That'd have fixed most of this mess, even if not exactly true/conventional.
But that's impossible in places that don't recognize gay partnerships. So you are arguing that same sex couples shouldn't have children (at least where they can't marry).
They get what they deserve for living in a hostile state. Move, get a partner adoption, and move back, if they have to live there. A full legal adoption by the other-mother would have fixed this. Where I looked at adoption, being married wasn't a requirement, but could prove a stumbling block if you couldn't prove a "stable" relationship. So they wouldn't even have to go for gay marriage, just have adpoted the child and get all the rights you mention.
Or, more practically, just lie. "I'm his second mother. I legally adopted him in California. No, I don't carry the papers on me at all times in case we end up in the ER. I'll bring them in tomorrow." Can you really imagine someone getting kicked out after that? If they were telling the truth and were kicked out, there'd be some heavy repercussions.
Nope. The state can choose to re-assign them (contested or non contested makes a difference in the length of the process and cost). But someone who has a kid and "just wants out" (deadbeat dads) can't "waive" his rights. He can only hope that someone else petitions to terminate them, at which time he can elect to not contest it. That seems like a pretty big distinction.
Unless the orphanage adopts the child (currently impossible) the parental rights/responsibilities aren't severed. So if you are later identified, you can be sued for back child support and such.
Slashdot Mirror
Additionally, in this case the plaintiff presented NO EVIDENCE that the source code was copied. Since the plaintiff presented NO evidence on the key question of the case, shouldn't the defendant win by default. Yes, they should, the judge ruled.
So why bother with juries in civil trials if the judge can over-rule them arbitrarily and capriciously?
So, is expert testimony "unsupported assertions"?
They were presented evidence that they were sufficiently similar to meet the legal standard. But the judge retro-actively (and essentially secretly) excluded that evidence without warning, then appointed himself jury of the evidence and re-tried it with himself as judge, laywer, and jury.
That's why I disagree with the finding.
Not sure what the deal is with all the hate here in the thread. Isn't the Slashdot groupthink supposed to say that anything that exposes people to computers and programming is a good thing?
We are also generally pro-education, and a non-human language isn't a language, as part of language is understanding those who speak it, and there's none of that with a computer language. At least the only common dead language is the basis for most of the western languages, and heavily used in medicine and law, so it has direct ancillary uses.
I covered those in English in public schools in the US. Perhaps it was the level/quality of the education, and not the subject, that was the differentiator.
The best thing from a language is that it gives understanding into the culture. Some languages even lack a direct translation for "no" because of the politeness in the culture, no need was formed for the direct (and impolite) response. That's hard to conceive in English, but does exist.
Frankly, the fact alone that you're posting such a bullshit about someone you know nothing about shows what's wrong with Internet comment systems.
So you've never heard of anyone buying a pack of pre-printed contracts or downloading them off the Internet and having success (mainly luck that nothing bad happened, not related to the quality of the contract itself) who later brags about how they can write contracts, and law is easy and all that?
Your sheltered life doesn't make for a very solid basis for an argument.
Look, you're obviously not a pilot, so you really don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Why are you being so angry?
Almost no one finds out in their first flight if they're able to do it or not. It takes many flights for normal pilots to get good at it.
People often decide in their introductory flight whether they hate it, or can't live without it. Yes, some who decide they can't live without it might never be good at it, but often those who don't have the touch will scare themselves enough on the first flight that they'll come to the correct conclusion.
Lots of aspiring pilots spend tens of thousands of dollars trying to learn to fly before they finally give up because they realize they're never going to be to master it enough to pass their check rides.
And I've seen the TV series about drivers who have been on learner licenses for years, and can't pass the driving test for a full license. Yes, there are plenty of people who just won't be able to do it.
If you aren't controlled enough in your movements, you'll never be able to hover an R22. You might be able to keep it relatively close to a fixed point, but the constant over-corrections will result in the closeness never being within a "pass". Learning the calm is hard. People know after an intro ride whether they had any aptitude for it, or would be forcing a square peg in a round hole. Of course, that does't stop the non-introspective from spending $20,000 before realizing the answer that was clear to the instructor on the first flight.
So Darwinism? You don't think there'd be a huge public outcry if tens of thousands of people started dying in helicopter training?
So what's your objection. You claim that if everyone were to fly, then there'd be mass death. When I'm agreeing with you, but pointing out that there wouldn't be "mass death by licensed pilots" because those that unsafe would be identified in the training stage, you disagree with me. Why do you disagree with me when I agree with you? Are you mad at yourself, and arguing with yourself?
You don't think I'm a pilot. But you are wrong. I'm not going to scan my logbook and email it to you, so I have no way of proving anything, so I'm sure you'll take your incorrect opinion over the correct reality. I hope you aren't a pilot.
He should have brought a Chess computer.
Oddly, we need a version of "male abortion" to achieve "reproductive equality" with women,
It's called a "vasectomy".
You missed it. The state is collecting and holding the money. The kid isn't getting it.
No, it couldn't. The husband is the father, unless proven otherwise. Only because they were both female did anyone care. If the non-participating partner was a male, married to the mother, he would have been listed as "father" on the birth certificate, and nobody would have suspected or sought out anyone else.
Sure it matters. If a married couple has a kid, the husband is the father, unless proven otherwise, and even then, still sometimes is still the legal father. Here, the lesbians tried to claim two parents, but the government said "nope, dad must have a penis," And refused parenthood to the other mother. That one anti-lesbian move is what caused the rest to get to where it is.
I gave my definition, and he disagreed. So what is your next step then?
Others have mentioned that they coudn't get the actual code to look at and compare, so they did an expert analysis to help analyze the gameplay, without focusing on the cosmetic changes.
You've obviously not played many sports games. The play is vastly different between some (at least it was back when the first few of these games in question were out - I don't play sports games, but have plenty of friends who did then). Some were so different that when you played one game, you'd try to pass every time. The gameplay favored the pass. Others you'd run every time. The gameplay greatly favored the run. Those types of things would be the "mechanics" that would demonstrate a basis from the previous game.
It is not up to the defense to prove they didn't copy. It is up to the plaintiff to prove that they did.
The jury thinks the plaintiff did.
When the plaintiff bungles, don't expect the defendant in an adversarial system to set up the correct test to save the plaintiff's behind. Instead, expect the defense to file motions claiming that the plaintiff bungled it. As happened here.
The failure wasn't on the part of the plaintiff. It was on the part of the judge.
IANAL, and since your advice is so awful, you should probably disclaim it too
What's to disclaim? No party of this suit is reading this, so nobody else could possibly take this as legal advice. And the only people who need to disclaim are actual lawyers. Laymen are allowed to give incorrect legal advice as much as they want, as long as they aren't in a commercial arrangement with the other party.
It is always up to the party who initiates the lawsuit to either prove without reasonable doubt (in criminal law) or to show preponderance of evidence (civil law).
An expert saying "The answer is cactus" and the defense saying nothing would lead to a finding (in civil) that the answer is cactus. With one witness, one word, and no response, the answer will always be for the plaintiff. That's how preponderance should (and does) work.
The failure here is that the appellate judge ruled that when you exclude the witness he thinks should have been excluded, that there wasn't enough presented to find for the plaintiff. The problem is that hearings are living things. The next question depends on the answer of the one before. So when the lower court (allegedly) improperly allowed the testimony, there was no reason to follow that witness with other corroborating evidence. Had the witness been excluded at the time, the trial would certainly have gone differently. So the appellate judge shouldn't have overturned it, but ruled on a point of law (the expert not being allowed), and returned the case to the lower court for a re-trial. Hopefully the plaintiff has sufficient pockets to file that brief at the next level up.
What they should have done was for the mother to name the female partner as the "father" on the birth certificate. That'd have fixed most of this mess, even if not exactly true/conventional.
But that's impossible in places that don't recognize gay partnerships. So you are arguing that same sex couples shouldn't have children (at least where they can't marry).
The other woman explicitly chose to be a parent, thus the burden should be her responsibility. Why aren't they?
Gays have no rights, so she can't be a second mom. Or at least that's my legal take on this and Kansas's stance.
They get what they deserve for living in a hostile state. Move, get a partner adoption, and move back, if they have to live there. A full legal adoption by the other-mother would have fixed this. Where I looked at adoption, being married wasn't a requirement, but could prove a stumbling block if you couldn't prove a "stable" relationship. So they wouldn't even have to go for gay marriage, just have adpoted the child and get all the rights you mention.
Or, more practically, just lie. "I'm his second mother. I legally adopted him in California. No, I don't carry the papers on me at all times in case we end up in the ER. I'll bring them in tomorrow." Can you really imagine someone getting kicked out after that? If they were telling the truth and were kicked out, there'd be some heavy repercussions.
He should have stopped hitting her.
I've written many contracts that the lawyers cross-checking them had no changes to.
What, you downloaded trivial ones off the Internet? They were one-sided against yourself?
Nope. The state can choose to re-assign them (contested or non contested makes a difference in the length of the process and cost). But someone who has a kid and "just wants out" (deadbeat dads) can't "waive" his rights. He can only hope that someone else petitions to terminate them, at which time he can elect to not contest it. That seems like a pretty big distinction.
Unless the orphanage adopts the child (currently impossible) the parental rights/responsibilities aren't severed. So if you are later identified, you can be sued for back child support and such.