Bullshit like this *isn't* legal. See, for example, CA's Consumer Legal Remedies Act: http://www.harp.org/clra.htm
For example, it is illegal under the CLRA to: "(5) Represent that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities which they do not have or that a person has a sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation, or connection which he or she does not have."
Here is a scenario: I use Firefox (with Intrepid Ibex) on an HP netbook. Overall OS Performance is "snappy"... except for Firefox. In Firefox, even scrolling a page of text can be a chore. I've just switched to Opera and it seems to be much speedier (but I really did *just* switch - like an hour ago - so my first impressions of Opera could easily be wrong). So, yeah, I care about the performance of Firefox on Linux.
Just to be a dick: I just bought an HP Mini 1000 with Windows (cheaper retail with Windows than without it online), installed Ubuntu, and *everything* (including all the FN Keys, Compiz, etc.) that I've tried has worked out of the box.
Easy. The wind forecast will tell you (about) how much power you can expect to produce from a given wind farm. This, I would think, would be useful in planning the allocation of power grid resources.
Read the complaint. This case isn't about linking it's about the unauthorized copying of headlines and first sentences of articles from the plaitiff's website and the us of their trademarks without permission. Obviously, I don't know the terms of the settlement, but this seems open and shut to me, so I'd suspect they've gotten most of what they want; either an injunction, damages, and/or some sort of ongoing deal with boston.com.
I hate to side with the RIAA but, if the allegations in their motion are true (and you'd think they would be; they are simply claims about the proceedings themselves that the judge can easily verify) then the issue is simply that Nesson has repeatedly failed to follow the court's rules governing discovery. He has not subpoenaed the witness or given notice of taking a deposition before moving to compel it. He has not conferred with the plaintiffs regarding the motion before filing it. He has not filed the required initial disclosures. All of these, under either the Federal Rules of Civil procedure or the local rules of the court are grounds for the dismissal of Nesson's motion and, possibly, monetary sanctions.
This sounds to me like a solitary instance of the RIAA's being in the right in court. Sorry everyone!
No actually. Filing papers that purport to make an appeal is not the same as appealing. To actually appeal requires some uptake from the court, not just the filing of some documents.
So, they have not appealed they have merely attempted to appeal.
Did I say it doesn't? My point was just that a signature on a document doesn't *prove* anything - whether it is on paper, or in an electronic signature pad.
Well, yes. Obviously, if you have a copy of the original signed document, your situation is much improved. Most people though, don't keep copies of everything they sign.
That's a good idea. It's just too bad that there is no way to prove that that's what you did when they pull out a fudged copy with only your signature on the last page. But, again, it's a good idea, and I agree that everyone should do it.
"Those marks mean they never had a physical signature attached to a document, and thus it's wholly unenforceable."
Totally wrong. The validity of those signatures have been upheld countless times in court. Generally, an electronic signature pad is backed by a surprisingly sophisticated system for tracking when you signed, how you signed, and what you signed, generally storing screenshots of each step of the process including the agreement for each unique signature.
Does it prove conclusively that you signed the document that they say you signed? No. but, then again, neither does your signature on a paper contract (Think about it. Do you sign every page or just the last one? ). The signature is good unless you dispute that you made it in court (and just not being sure if that is the document you signed doesn't cut it. You are expected to have a reasonable belief that it isn't).
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit like this *isn't* legal. See, for example, CA's Consumer Legal Remedies Act: http://www.harp.org/clra.htm
For example, it is illegal under the CLRA to:
"(5) Represent that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities which they do not have or that a person has a sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation, or connection which he or she does not have."
(IANAL)
Here is a scenario: I use Firefox (with Intrepid Ibex) on an HP netbook. Overall OS Performance is "snappy" ... except for Firefox. In Firefox, even scrolling a page of text can be a chore. I've just switched to Opera and it seems to be much speedier (but I really did *just* switch - like an hour ago - so my first impressions of Opera could easily be wrong). So, yeah, I care about the performance of Firefox on Linux.
OK. But what is required is a browser for Linux that isn't half-assed for things to not look bleak. What do you guys recommend?
Oh. Well THAT sounds like a plus.
Yeah. Still waiting for the 6-cell battery from HP :(
Glad to hear the Samsung is working out.
Just to be a dick: I just bought an HP Mini 1000 with Windows (cheaper retail with Windows than without it online), installed Ubuntu, and *everything* (including all the FN Keys, Compiz, etc.) that I've tried has worked out of the box.
He's dead Jim.
http://www.azcentral.com/sports/asu/articles/2008/12/02/20081202spt-dillon.html
Easy. The wind forecast will tell you (about) how much power you can expect to produce from a given wind farm. This, I would think, would be useful in planning the allocation of power grid resources.
Singularity!
ISPs aren't necessarily common carriers either.
Read the complaint. This case isn't about linking it's about the unauthorized copying of headlines and first sentences of articles from the plaitiff's website and the us of their trademarks without permission. Obviously, I don't know the terms of the settlement, but this seems open and shut to me, so I'd suspect they've gotten most of what they want; either an injunction, damages, and/or some sort of ongoing deal with boston.com.
"Whoever filed that lawsuit needs to be fired."
Why? They won.
I hate to side with the RIAA but, if the allegations in their motion are true (and you'd think they would be; they are simply claims about the proceedings themselves that the judge can easily verify) then the issue is simply that Nesson has repeatedly failed to follow the court's rules governing discovery. He has not subpoenaed the witness or given notice of taking a deposition before moving to compel it. He has not conferred with the plaintiffs regarding the motion before filing it. He has not filed the required initial disclosures. All of these, under either the Federal Rules of Civil procedure or the local rules of the court are grounds for the dismissal of Nesson's motion and, possibly, monetary sanctions.
This sounds to me like a solitary instance of the RIAA's being in the right in court. Sorry everyone!
"...resident in Maryland and so can't be subpoenad to a Massachusetts District court anyway."
No. He can be. Massachusetts District Court is a Federal Court. No jurisdiction problem.
No actually. Filing papers that purport to make an appeal is not the same as appealing. To actually appeal requires some uptake from the court, not just the filing of some documents.
So, they have not appealed they have merely attempted to appeal.
What are these "special rights" you speak of?
Did I say it doesn't? My point was just that a signature on a document doesn't *prove* anything - whether it is on paper, or in an electronic signature pad.
Well, yes. Obviously, if you have a copy of the original signed document, your situation is much improved. Most people though, don't keep copies of everything they sign.
Yeah. Anyone who went to a public school in the early 90's should be very familiar with this arrangement. *Sigh*
That's a good idea. It's just too bad that there is no way to prove that that's what you did when they pull out a fudged copy with only your signature on the last page. But, again, it's a good idea, and I agree that everyone should do it.
"The simplest and most logical assumption would be that..." ...they looked him up in the phonebook?
Does it occur to anyone that there are these databases of names paired with addresses? "White Pages", I think they're called.
"Those marks mean they never had a physical signature attached to a document, and thus it's wholly unenforceable."
Totally wrong. The validity of those signatures have been upheld countless times in court. Generally, an electronic signature pad is backed by a surprisingly sophisticated system for tracking when you signed, how you signed, and what you signed, generally storing screenshots of each step of the process including the agreement for each unique signature.
Does it prove conclusively that you signed the document that they say you signed? No. but, then again, neither does your signature on a paper contract (Think about it. Do you sign every page or just the last one? ). The signature is good unless you dispute that you made it in court (and just not being sure if that is the document you signed doesn't cut it. You are expected to have a reasonable belief that it isn't).
I'm genuinely confused. Is this a joke, or do you really think John McCain won the election. And, if so, why?
Perhaps Only Dreemin should switch to making prints of this instead: http://www.flickr.com/photos/40865443@N00/49914248 0/.