IIRC because I only have to know Texas and federal law to pass the bar exam. I had to write a paper discussing wrongful termination once, and I read about Wisconsin and Texas laws for that. I believe I already read a general 50-state survey that stated most (all?) states have wrongful termination laws like I've described.
You typically have no area of expertise when you first get out of law school. There are no majors, and any law school that tells you otherwise is a crappy law school.
Just about the narrowest you can talk about when you get out of law school is civil vs. criminal and litigation vs. transactional (contracts, mergers, "doing deals," etc.).
I would fall in the civil litigation quartile simply because crimlaw doesn't interest me, and transactional (while it has GREAT exit options) does not seem as fun (although I'd probably be better at it, considering my math background).
There is an exception to that rule: If you are fired for refusing to take an action in clear contravention of constitutional or statutory law, then you can sue for wrongful termination (or some cause of action like that).
Not legal advice. Not a lawyer. Not your lawyer. Don't drink and drive.
But if your job is to install software, can it really be said that your job description includes breaking the law and exposing yourself to hundreds of thousands of dollars (millions?) in civil liability?
The same is true for not saying anything when you witness a crime being committed. It's called obstruction.
No it's not. You are under no obligation to report misdemeanors. And if you fail to report a felony, it's called misprision, not obstruction. And it's only punishable if you actually attempt to conceal it, as opposed to just not reporting it. (I speak only of federal law, as I don't care about doing a 50-state survey here.)
Alternatively, you could refuse to BREAK THE LAW, get fired, and then sue and win. IIRC, most states have wrongful termination laws, where if you are terminated after refusing to break the law for your employer, you can get dollar bills (damages) or your job back (equitable remedy).
Not a lawyer yet. I get licensed next week (passed the bar (woo!). I'm not your lawyer. This is not legal advice.
With all due respect, it really seems like you're the one who doesn't understand the legal system. It's all about "money" my ass. You've never heard of equitable relief or injunctive relief?
1. Why the govt. does not want to resolve the mess that is software patents, now that a golden opportunity has been presented?
The person arguing the government's position in court is tasked with defending the government, not pursuing the right course of action. He's the government's rep, not the people's rep. This gets into all kinds of jurisprudential philosophy, and it's easy to be glib and say "HE'S SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT ME...DEMOCRACY!," but that's not actually true. In an adversarial system in which a law is challenged, the system only works if you have someone advocating on both sides.
Furthermore, here, the responsibility of reforming the patent system is Congress's, not the Executive's. The lawyer representing the government is an Executive officer.
Finally, the Supreme Court won't do it because a majority of the members are conservative, and "fixing it" as you've so put it would be activist, something most people in this country rail against (as a synonym for "not what I believe," I might add).
You also ask how it's technically feasible to rule on BM but not on software patents. It's easy. The Court could say: "Before us is a business methods patent issue. As a matter of law, it does not promote the useful arts and sciences to allow BMs to be patented. Accordingly, BMs are not constitutional." Note here that they never examined whether software patents are necessary or constitutional or mandated or anything. This is what's called a "narrow holding." John Roberts very famously has said he will pursue narrow holdings in cases before his Court. (Of course, until a pet issue of his comes before the Court).
Have you seen a lawyer's billables worksheet? It's pretty damn detailed. You bill in 6-minute increments at most big law firms, and you have to list what you're working on each of those 6-minute periods.
This is the second post I've seen in this conversation that makes this claim. It is false. Running at a 5mph pace if you weight 170 pounds and run a 5mph pace (hardly qualifies as "running" at all) for an hour, you burn nearly 700 calories. That is 1/3 of what the recommended daily intake is per day! 700 calories, 700 calories, 700 calories, holy crap 700 calories. PS This is why I supplemented my weight-training regime (squats, deadlifts, bench, overhead press, rows, etc.) with training for a half marathon. I now have a "number" to aim for every running day (four times per week): X miles. I have motivation to do so, and it makes things easier. Incidentally, in two months running, my blood pressure dropped from 145/90ish to 115/75 with no change in anything other than the fact that I'm running more. I eat the same, lift the same, sleep the same.
I can provide sources for the running calories assertion:
Your body needs energy to metabolize stored fat. So technically, GP was speaking truth. If you don't have the energy to burn fat, you won't burn the stored fat.
It should be mentioned that you don't need a fancy program to begin ketosis. You just need to ingest vanishingly few non-fiber carbohydrates per day. Your body gets energy from ketones and sugars. Stop eating sugars and your body begins working off ketones.
The ketogenic diet is pretty famous. I, of course, would never switch to it because you do have a drop in energy (according to every journal article I've read on it), and I don't want a drop in energy when I'm frequently hoisting 350lbs of weight onto my back at the gym. Also, running off ketones can't be good for long-distance runners.
Yes, they do. And they're currently working on a new codification of fair use, which is currently a doctrine over there that does not exist in legislation.
If I recall from my software licenses class correctly: Effectively, the jurisprudence is that you can legally return the software after you've opened it and the vendor has to accept the return and refund your money because you haven't "signed the contract" yet.
Why can't I tell people they can't sell my book when they're done with it? Why can't I tell people where they can read my book? Why can't I forbid libraries from buying my books?
ProCD v. Zeidenbert, which held shrinkwrap licenses enforceable. Granted, there is another line of cases that disagrees. This means it comes down to where you live, and when the Supreme Court will get off its ass, grant cert, and address the issue.
This is not legal advice. I am not your lawyer. I am actually not a lawyer (I may become one this week when I get bar results back). I am not your lawyer. This is merely a summarization of the law as provided in the link below and as provided to me in a software licenses class.
Basically, there are different impositions in a license. Some are classified as covenants, and some are classified as conditions. A covenant is something a licensee agrees to do or else he breaches a contract. A condition is something that a licensee agrees to or else there is no license at all.
So if the no-clones term in the OS X EULA imposes a covenant, then Psystar would be liable under state law for breach of contract (and damages would be calculated based on loss of sales and other things). Someone who purchases from Psystar would not be liable for anything, having never entered into such a contract with Apple.
However, if the term in the OS X EULA imposes a condition, then Psystar will have voided the license completely. This means they have no legitimate authorization to install, use, etc. a copy of OS X. Therefore, they do not have a copy they can install. Psystar would be liable for copyright infringement for making unauthorized copies.
Furthermore, anyone who purchases from Psystar would also be liable for copyright infringement for using unauthorized copies.
So you can see why this is not an open-and-shut issue like the armchair lawyers on Slashdot would have you believe.
You're pretty much the only person in this entire discussion so far who deserves mod points.
I gave up trying to actually respond to copyright discussions on Slashdot after my first two and a half years of law school. It's just too time-consuming to correct all the armchair lawyer bullshit spewed here.
I just wanted to give you credit where credit is due.
Slashdot Mirror
IIRC because I only have to know Texas and federal law to pass the bar exam. I had to write a paper discussing wrongful termination once, and I read about Wisconsin and Texas laws for that. I believe I already read a general 50-state survey that stated most (all?) states have wrongful termination laws like I've described.
You typically have no area of expertise when you first get out of law school. There are no majors, and any law school that tells you otherwise is a crappy law school.
Just about the narrowest you can talk about when you get out of law school is civil vs. criminal and litigation vs. transactional (contracts, mergers, "doing deals," etc.).
I would fall in the civil litigation quartile simply because crimlaw doesn't interest me, and transactional (while it has GREAT exit options) does not seem as fun (although I'd probably be better at it, considering my math background).
There is an exception to that rule: If you are fired for refusing to take an action in clear contravention of constitutional or statutory law, then you can sue for wrongful termination (or some cause of action like that).
Not legal advice. Not a lawyer. Not your lawyer. Don't drink and drive.
Seriously. If those are the only three topics, how do you classify someone who is successful and an agreeable person?
But if your job is to install software, can it really be said that your job description includes breaking the law and exposing yourself to hundreds of thousands of dollars (millions?) in civil liability?
No it's not. You are under no obligation to report misdemeanors. And if you fail to report a felony, it's called misprision, not obstruction. And it's only punishable if you actually attempt to conceal it, as opposed to just not reporting it. (I speak only of federal law, as I don't care about doing a 50-state survey here.)
Nor do any of those professions in right-to-work states (approx. 50% of all states). Right to Work Laws.
Alternatively, you could refuse to BREAK THE LAW, get fired, and then sue and win. IIRC, most states have wrongful termination laws, where if you are terminated after refusing to break the law for your employer, you can get dollar bills (damages) or your job back (equitable remedy).
Not a lawyer yet. I get licensed next week (passed the bar (woo!). I'm not your lawyer. This is not legal advice.
There was no slam on autistic individuals. Judging by your reaction, it really appears that you thinks "autist" is an insult.
With all due respect, it really seems like you're the one who doesn't understand the legal system. It's all about "money" my ass. You've never heard of equitable relief or injunctive relief?
Are actions "speech" as well (e.g., holding up a sign or something like that, which is definitely not verbal).
If so, I presume you think murder, an action which expresses the thought "I want you to die," should be unpunishable free speech as well.
The person arguing the government's position in court is tasked with defending the government, not pursuing the right course of action. He's the government's rep, not the people's rep. This gets into all kinds of jurisprudential philosophy, and it's easy to be glib and say "HE'S SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT ME...DEMOCRACY!," but that's not actually true. In an adversarial system in which a law is challenged, the system only works if you have someone advocating on both sides.
Furthermore, here, the responsibility of reforming the patent system is Congress's, not the Executive's. The lawyer representing the government is an Executive officer.
Finally, the Supreme Court won't do it because a majority of the members are conservative, and "fixing it" as you've so put it would be activist, something most people in this country rail against (as a synonym for "not what I believe," I might add).
You also ask how it's technically feasible to rule on BM but not on software patents. It's easy. The Court could say: "Before us is a business methods patent issue. As a matter of law, it does not promote the useful arts and sciences to allow BMs to be patented. Accordingly, BMs are not constitutional." Note here that they never examined whether software patents are necessary or constitutional or mandated or anything. This is what's called a "narrow holding." John Roberts very famously has said he will pursue narrow holdings in cases before his Court. (Of course, until a pet issue of his comes before the Court).
Have you seen a lawyer's billables worksheet? It's pretty damn detailed. You bill in 6-minute increments at most big law firms, and you have to list what you're working on each of those 6-minute periods.
You do realize fruits and vegetables are almost 100% carbohydrates, don't you?
This is the second post I've seen in this conversation that makes this claim. It is false. Running at a 5mph pace if you weight 170 pounds and run a 5mph pace (hardly qualifies as "running" at all) for an hour, you burn nearly 700 calories. That is 1/3 of what the recommended daily intake is per day! 700 calories, 700 calories, 700 calories, holy crap 700 calories. PS This is why I supplemented my weight-training regime (squats, deadlifts, bench, overhead press, rows, etc.) with training for a half marathon. I now have a "number" to aim for every running day (four times per week): X miles. I have motivation to do so, and it makes things easier. Incidentally, in two months running, my blood pressure dropped from 145/90ish to 115/75 with no change in anything other than the fact that I'm running more. I eat the same, lift the same, sleep the same.
I can provide sources for the running calories assertion:
http://www.runtheplanet.com/resources/tools/calculators/caloriecounter.asp
http://www.healthstatus.com/cgi-bin/calc/calculator.cgi
http://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist3.htm
Your body needs energy to metabolize stored fat. So technically, GP was speaking truth. If you don't have the energy to burn fat, you won't burn the stored fat.
Good sir, are you living in the 1800s?
It should be mentioned that you don't need a fancy program to begin ketosis. You just need to ingest vanishingly few non-fiber carbohydrates per day. Your body gets energy from ketones and sugars. Stop eating sugars and your body begins working off ketones.
The ketogenic diet is pretty famous. I, of course, would never switch to it because you do have a drop in energy (according to every journal article I've read on it), and I don't want a drop in energy when I'm frequently hoisting 350lbs of weight onto my back at the gym. Also, running off ketones can't be good for long-distance runners.
Yes, they do. And they're currently working on a new codification of fair use, which is currently a doctrine over there that does not exist in legislation.
But Obama is Kenyan, not American.
If I recall from my software licenses class correctly: Effectively, the jurisprudence is that you can legally return the software after you've opened it and the vendor has to accept the return and refund your money because you haven't "signed the contract" yet.
I suppose that's because you've never been privy to an NDA for a book. This sort of thing happens all the time.
In fact, bar review courses, the review courses for USMLE exams for doctors, Kaplan, etc. review courses for the MCAT/LSAT/etc.
They all have contracts forbidding you from reselling the materials.
I suppose you've never heard of NDAs before?
ProCD v. Zeidenbert, which held shrinkwrap licenses enforceable. Granted, there is another line of cases that disagrees. This means it comes down to where you live, and when the Supreme Court will get off its ass, grant cert, and address the issue.
This is not legal advice. I am not your lawyer. I am actually not a lawyer (I may become one this week when I get bar results back). I am not your lawyer. This is merely a summarization of the law as provided in the link below and as provided to me in a software licenses class.
There is a possible error in your analysis: Covenants vs. Conditions of a EULA.
Basically, there are different impositions in a license. Some are classified as covenants, and some are classified as conditions. A covenant is something a licensee agrees to do or else he breaches a contract. A condition is something that a licensee agrees to or else there is no license at all.
So if the no-clones term in the OS X EULA imposes a covenant, then Psystar would be liable under state law for breach of contract (and damages would be calculated based on loss of sales and other things). Someone who purchases from Psystar would not be liable for anything, having never entered into such a contract with Apple.
However, if the term in the OS X EULA imposes a condition, then Psystar will have voided the license completely. This means they have no legitimate authorization to install, use, etc. a copy of OS X. Therefore, they do not have a copy they can install. Psystar would be liable for copyright infringement for making unauthorized copies.
Furthermore, anyone who purchases from Psystar would also be liable for copyright infringement for using unauthorized copies.
So you can see why this is not an open-and-shut issue like the armchair lawyers on Slashdot would have you believe.
You're pretty much the only person in this entire discussion so far who deserves mod points.
I gave up trying to actually respond to copyright discussions on Slashdot after my first two and a half years of law school. It's just too time-consuming to correct all the armchair lawyer bullshit spewed here.
I just wanted to give you credit where credit is due.