Because this was the only even remotely reasonable outline of a case they could develop against anyone. Any other case (like one against Red Hat) would be put on hold until the IBM case was sorted out due to similarities. This one against AutoZone is different enough that it can progress independantly of the IBM case.
The trend of moving wi-fi access from a pay-per-use service to a free commodity seems to be a trend mostly in the US perhaps? I'm not sure about other countries, but here in Paris, a lot of wi-fi in public places (train stations and the like) is currently free but will become a pay-per-use or subscriber-only service later in the year (I assume once the network is complete and they have their invoice and payment systems up and working)
The article isn't as clear as it could be on this point: the trial judge who initially ruled against Verizon said that, not the three-judge panel who overturned the decision.
But the comment by the trial judge brings up a deeper problem that is facing the US judicial system and, I would imagine, judicial systems around the world. We need judges who can specialize and then hear cases that fit their specializations. This judge obviously didn't have a great deal of knowledge about the inner workings of ISPs and the internet in general, because his comment that Verizon's interpretation "makes little sense from a policy standpoint" is completely illogical. It makes perfect sense from a policy standpoint. As technology gets more and more involved and lawsuits/trials get more and more complicated, we need judges who we know will have a grasp on the situation, not someone chosen at random who may only use the internet once a week to check his AOL email account.
Slashdot Mirror
Because this was the only even remotely reasonable outline of a case they could develop against anyone. Any other case (like one against Red Hat) would be put on hold until the IBM case was sorted out due to similarities. This one against AutoZone is different enough that it can progress independantly of the IBM case.
The trend of moving wi-fi access from a pay-per-use service to a free commodity seems to be a trend mostly in the US perhaps? I'm not sure about other countries, but here in Paris, a lot of wi-fi in public places (train stations and the like) is currently free but will become a pay-per-use or subscriber-only service later in the year (I assume once the network is complete and they have their invoice and payment systems up and working)
The article isn't as clear as it could be on this point: the trial judge who initially ruled against Verizon said that, not the three-judge panel who overturned the decision. But the comment by the trial judge brings up a deeper problem that is facing the US judicial system and, I would imagine, judicial systems around the world. We need judges who can specialize and then hear cases that fit their specializations. This judge obviously didn't have a great deal of knowledge about the inner workings of ISPs and the internet in general, because his comment that Verizon's interpretation "makes little sense from a policy standpoint" is completely illogical. It makes perfect sense from a policy standpoint. As technology gets more and more involved and lawsuits/trials get more and more complicated, we need judges who we know will have a grasp on the situation, not someone chosen at random who may only use the internet once a week to check his AOL email account.