While I agree that it does sound kind of iffy, saying that "no large patent owner" would support this isn't exactly true - Google, for example, supports the bill. Then again, from what I understand they don't do much suing themselves, and mainly want to make it harder to get sued, which happens to them all the time.
While it doesn't go that far, there's a bill just introduced in Congress that would make forum shopping like this more difficult. The Patent Reform Act of 2009 would mean, in part:
Patent Litigation Venue: "A party shall not manufacture venue by assignment, incorporation, or otherwise to invoke the venue of a specific district court." Venue is only proper were (a) defendant is incorporated; (b) defendant has its principle place of business; (c) where the defendant is permanently located and has committed substantial acts of infringement; or (d) where the plaintiff resides if the plaintiff is a nonprofit or individual inventor. The court should transfer venue to avoid evidentiary burdens when transfer can be accomplished without causing undue hardship to the plaintiff."
I'm no lawyer but wasn't the Bilski decision supposed to put an end to these software patent lawsuits & (essentially) invalidate software patents? Software patents don't deal with "machines" or "transformations", so I'm confused as to how these continue... Or is the Bilski case waiting to have their day in front of the US Supreme Court and such cases will continue until a ruling comes down from SCOTUS...
Not exactly. Bilski did set up a new test for patentable subject matter, the "machine or transformation" test you noted, but it's not clear whether this shoots down software patents entirely (since programming a general-purpose computer with the software involved may make it a "specific machine" for the purposes of Bilski), and in any case, Bilski's only immediate effect is to prevent new patents from being issued that don't pass this test. Existing patents remain in force, even if they wouldn't have passed the machine or transformation test, until a court or the USPTO specifically rules them invalid. That doesn't happen until the patent is challenged.
If Bilski is read to invalidate software patents generally, then it would be very dangerous for Software Tree to bring this suit, since Red Hat could simply ask to the judge to rule the patent invalid. Since Bilski isn't clearly defined to do this, suits like this are still going to keep happening.
Yes, just like the overwhelming majority of M.D.s oppose "alternative medicine".
OK now, I know you think you're being terribly clever here, all implying that the climate scientists are only out to protect their incomes (well-known to be massive), but I'm not going to sit here on a website that's supposed to be "News for Nerds" and listen to people say that the only reason MDs oppose alternative medicine is because they're afraid for their revenue streams. I suspect that the reason most MDs oppose alternative medicine is because there's little to no evidence supporting most alternative medicine doing anything useful beyond the placebo effect. I'd love to see some some real solid evidence that they do; I suspect many up-and-coming MDs would too. Even if the entire medical establishment were against it for no reason other than fear, or even positive evil, I don't believe that, by now, no one has been able to come up with scientifically viable evidence of alt med doing much. If you support it so much, then get off your couch and work to prove it.
Just like the overwhelming majority of "artists" support copyright.
Come on, do you really oppose all copyright at all times in all ways? For books? For copyleft schemes that ensure attribution and free access? It's easy and fun to say "copyright sUx0rs" when all we ever talk about it the RIAA, but have you really thought about this is a broader context? Copyright serves a valid purpose. It's been abused the hell out of lately, but that doesn't mean the concept is wrong.
Just like the overwhelming majority of bankers support the bailout.
I wish they would, but every experience I've ever had with Cox would suggest that they'll do none of those things. Transparency? Ha. Transparency is for non-pseudo-monopolies.
Hold on now, just because there was an area called "Palestine" doesn't mean that it was a country, much less a sovereign one. For the Allies to use their military and political position to create a new country without the consent of those already living there is morally questionable, but so is any use of force, and one way or another, Israel exists now. Regardless of of how racist Churchill or anyone else was, regardless of how horrible the situation was on all sides (and it was pretty damn horrible), the people living in Israel now need to come to some sort of agreement, and for some elements of the "Palestinian" people to think that resorting to terrorism is a good idea is just idiocy. Would you support the Native Americans if they chose to do the same?
I don't particularly like Israel (I oppose religiously-defined governments on principle, and their recent dealings with the palestinians have been horrendous), but all sides need to be seeing what they can do with a bad situation. People are always going to try to take the land and property of other people if they think they can make better use of it, but the answer isn't to turn things into a cycle of endless retribution, it's to try to work out some sort of equitable solution. The palestinians can gain from the existence of the modern infrastructure and government Israel has to offer, and if Israel can overcome its own paranoia and racism, maybe something good could come from it.
Congratulations. You've noticed that the plot of Harry Potter has parallels to real-life persecuted minorities. You now qualify for a degree in obvious literary interpretation! If you like, you might want to go for a PhD - perhaps you could examine Christian symbolism in the Chronicles of Narnia. I see a bright future ahead of you.
Ha - nice, I'll have to remember that one. BTW, how the heck did I get modded overrated? I hadn't been previously rated...does the HH guy read slashdot?
I would have hoped that anyone reading slashdot would have the tech-savvy to know that the above post is a joke, but since apparently some mod thinks it's informative, here's a PSA:
If you follow the instructions in this video, you will not charge your ipod, and all you do is risk damaging it. The video author, Household Hacker, is known for making up completely ridiculous "hacks" and presenting them as true, some of which aren't so obvious that the average person would know the difference. He seems to have put up a bunch of real, though lame hacks recently, and for what that's worth I applaud him, but crap like the video above is positively harming people's ability to learn how electronics work. Now you know, and knowing's half the battle.
What exactly am I supposed to take from the things you told me to look at? I'm not that concerned about old people in Japan being cared for by robots - as long as they aren't suffering for it, what's the harm, other than apparently reminding you of a science fiction movie? What does hyper-inflation have to do with low population growth? Regardless, while it may or may not be true that our current infrastructure depends on constant population growth, constant population growth is not ecologically sustainable. Better that we have some temporary economic disruption while the older generation lacks support than to continue to tax our resources beyond what can be supported.
I guess I just don't feel as strongly that only the parties should be presenting a position. I know that's the fundamental basis of the adversarial system, but I also think that it's one of its most significant flaws. It seems to me that by compromising the "only parties present arguments" rule, letting amici curiae present opinionated argument prevents some of the problems of unequal representation while preserving the core benefit of letting parties be the primary source of argument.
I would think that amici curiae would be less likely to be subject to group polarization in their current position than if they were more closely attached to the litigation - who could be more objective? Randomly polled practitioners and law professors, who haven't done any research on the subject?
By the way, that's an interesting point about the inquisitorial court system - I hadn't thought of it that way. But why don't you mind if the courts did that, but you do if they accept submissions? Just the whole "quasi-interested party" thing? But the people who wrote the law review articles had to have the same sort of interest, or they wouldn't have gone to the trouble of getting published in the first place...
Yes, but presumably the judge already has access to treatises on jury instructions generally - if this were all that the amici were presenting, I don't see it as being very helpful. When you actually get down to the specific question at issue here, you could try to simply present the most relevant material, but something tells me that in most cases, the parties have already done this. Perhaps in a situation where the courts do not have access to the kind of information that is now easily available, I would agree that just presenting a short tutorial on the law of jury instructions would be helpful, and that is probably the role in which amici curiae evolved. However, the situation being what it is, I just don't see the use of this sort of limited assistance.
I guess our disagreement comes down to whether or not it's appropriate for third parties to present analysis of any kind to the court. Would you think it wrong for the judge to read a bunch of opinionated law review articles on the subject while trying to decide the case? What's the difference between that and being presented with amicus curiae briefs? I see allowing legal minds to present arguments on both sides as almost a sort of crowdsourcing - this way, deficiencies in the individual parties' lawyers can be compensated for, and the best consensus on the meaning of the law presented.
I understand where you're coming from. You're right that, in practice, they are supporting one side or the other - the only way it could be otherwise is if the amicus wrote a brief on a point that didn't effect either party, but then it would just be a waste of the judge's time (or, more likely, the clerk's).
Be that as it may, though, I think that they are, on the whole, a good thing. Amicus briefs can serve a useful purpose - they may bring up arguments that the parties missed. Since all they can do to influence the decision is have good arguments or be from impressive authors, I think that the benefit outweighs the harm.
Anyway, I don't think the kind of dispassionate "bringing forward information" you're talking about is really possible. If you're qualified to be writing an amicus brief, you have to be well-versed in the law. If you can't see the effect the information you're presenting would have on the parties, then the information is probably so general as to be useless. If you can see how it effects the outcome, then doesn't it seem sort of ridiculous to have to hold your tongue, and walk the judge just short of the conclusion?
Arguably, I think the briefs are misfiled and that the process of the amicus curiae is being abused; A good amicus brief should, in my opinion, not be filed in support of any particular side, but in defense if a particular argument of law or explanation of fact.
In fairness to the amici, the briefs are on a particular point of law ("whether the Court
committed a manifest error of law in instructing the jury that '[t]he act of making
copyrighted sound recordings available for electronic distribution on a peer-to-peer
network, without license from the copyright owners, violates the copyright owners'
exclusive right of distribution, regardless of whether actual distribution has been shown."
), not just in support of one side.
While it does look a bit like astroturfing, the AC's right - Obama doesplan (p15) to significantly cut NASA's funding to get money for his education plan.
It's stupid and shortsighted, and probably my biggest objection to Obama, but since McCain also wants to cut NASA's funding, and he's a social conservative, I'll still probably vote for Obama. Anyway, quasi-offtopic, I know, but it is relevant to whether we'll be out there in the future, looking for the sources of things like this.
Are you really so boring that you can't deal with adults enjoying well-told fantasy? Sheesh, grow a little whimsy. Harry Potter is primarily aimed at children, yes, but like any really good children's story it works on a lot of different levels. I'm not 40, but at 24 I'm certainly well above the usual "children's book" age group, and I'm not even slightly ashamed of reading and liking Harry Potter. Maybe if you tried reading an entire book, especially some of the later ones, instead of "bits and pieces", you'd understand. Maybe you wouldn't - different people have different tastes. Regardless, the fact that you don't care for something that you haven't bothered to read in its entirety is no grounds for insulting people who do like it.
Just because the article says "microwave" doesn't mean they'd use the same frequency as a microwave oven. There are many frequency ranges within the microwave spectrum that don't interact strongly with water. Even setting aside safety concerns, it would be idiotic to use a frequency that couples with water because if you did, every passing cloud would absorb a lot of your energy.
It's funny to read this - I can remember seeing something extremely similar, down to the size, impact craters, and orange color, when I was a kid (though it can't have been the same as yours - this would have been early '90s Florida). I'm not sure I can say I believe you, since I'm really pretty confident I imagined it as I was nearly asleep at the time, but it's funny that the experience was so similar. Makes me wonder...
Oops, there's me half-remembering my Constitutional Law. The Constitutional doctrine in question here actually isn't in the Constitution. The Supreme Court interpreted the Commerce clause to mean that, since Congress is granted authority to regulate interstate commerce, the individual states are barred from doing it themselves. It's called the "Dormant Commerce Clause" doctrine.
My mistake doesn't help your argument, though; if we ignore such judge-made "additions", we actually end up in a situation where the states can tax internet transactions all they like.
I thought that was in the constitution... nothing supersedes constitutional law.
It is in the Constitution, but what the Constitution actually says is the states can't lay taxes on imports, and generally can't burden interstate commerce, without the consent of Congress. The idea is to prevent the states from having little economic wars with one another, but still allow taxes if they can convince the national Congress that it's necessary.
Thanks, but I wasn't the first - I saw some others wondering about it before I got all the way through the pdfs. Sorry for the snarkiness in my comment, though - I really respect what you do, and that you've been so willing to help people here understand the law. I'm a law student myself, probably going into the patent field, so law & technology stories are always at the top of my interest list.
BTW, I just noticed that that reply was from NYCL, so I retract my (semi-sarcastic) question of whether you've read the link. Point stands, though; I don't see how this constitutes a violation of a C&D.
The "irrefutable proof" is in the Exhibits (Cease & desist order, printouts) (pdf). Boy are you a lazy reader.
Have you actually read the document you just linked to? It's far from clear how it shows that they were violating the C&D order. All those reports are from 2007, prior to the cease and desist. I think the real story here is that, since the C&D makes clear that Mediasentry was at no point licensed to operate as a private investigator in Massachusetts, any testimony referring to reports obtained through their unlicensed investigations should be thrown out.
The interesting question in there is apparently whether or not Mediasentry was employed by the RIAA or by a law firm; there's an exception to the license requirement for PIs employed by law firms, so the RIAA is claiming that they didn't employ Mediasentry, their lawyers did.
I've never understood why so many people want H.R. Giger to do the art for Dune. He has a very interesting style, and I think it was perfect for Alien, but I've never once imagined anything like a Giger setpiece when I read Dune. Seriously, people, what kinds of things are you envisioning when you say you want Giger? There is a profound sense of corrupted humanity in his work that doesn't fit with the descriptions of anything in Dune, or even feel appropriate. The Harkonnens were corrupted, sure, but it was an opulent sort of corruption, not the sort of quasi-human organics that Giger draws.
Overweight, yes. Diseased, not so much. Screaming-crazy, covered in boils, barely able to form coherent sentences, not so much. The book's Baron was actually threatening, instead of just ridiculous, because he seemed like exactly the kind of man who would be in charge of a group like the Harkonnens. Realistic villains are usually more frightening than cartoons.
Slashdot Mirror
While I agree that it does sound kind of iffy, saying that "no large patent owner" would support this isn't exactly true - Google, for example, supports the bill. Then again, from what I understand they don't do much suing themselves, and mainly want to make it harder to get sued, which happens to them all the time.
Patent Litigation Venue: "A party shall not manufacture venue by assignment, incorporation, or otherwise to invoke the venue of a specific district court." Venue is only proper were (a) defendant is incorporated; (b) defendant has its principle place of business; (c) where the defendant is permanently located and has committed substantial acts of infringement; or (d) where the plaintiff resides if the plaintiff is a nonprofit or individual inventor. The court should transfer venue to avoid evidentiary burdens when transfer can be accomplished without causing undue hardship to the plaintiff."
(From Patently-O)
I'm no lawyer but wasn't the Bilski decision supposed to put an end to these software patent lawsuits & (essentially) invalidate software patents? Software patents don't deal with "machines" or "transformations", so I'm confused as to how these continue... Or is the Bilski case waiting to have their day in front of the US Supreme Court and such cases will continue until a ruling comes down from SCOTUS...
Not exactly. Bilski did set up a new test for patentable subject matter, the "machine or transformation" test you noted, but it's not clear whether this shoots down software patents entirely (since programming a general-purpose computer with the software involved may make it a "specific machine" for the purposes of Bilski), and in any case, Bilski's only immediate effect is to prevent new patents from being issued that don't pass this test. Existing patents remain in force, even if they wouldn't have passed the machine or transformation test, until a court or the USPTO specifically rules them invalid. That doesn't happen until the patent is challenged.
If Bilski is read to invalidate software patents generally, then it would be very dangerous for Software Tree to bring this suit, since Red Hat could simply ask to the judge to rule the patent invalid. Since Bilski isn't clearly defined to do this, suits like this are still going to keep happening.
Yes, just like the overwhelming majority of M.D.s oppose "alternative medicine".
OK now, I know you think you're being terribly clever here, all implying that the climate scientists are only out to protect their incomes (well-known to be massive), but I'm not going to sit here on a website that's supposed to be "News for Nerds" and listen to people say that the only reason MDs oppose alternative medicine is because they're afraid for their revenue streams. I suspect that the reason most MDs oppose alternative medicine is because there's little to no evidence supporting most alternative medicine doing anything useful beyond the placebo effect. I'd love to see some some real solid evidence that they do; I suspect many up-and-coming MDs would too. Even if the entire medical establishment were against it for no reason other than fear, or even positive evil, I don't believe that, by now, no one has been able to come up with scientifically viable evidence of alt med doing much. If you support it so much, then get off your couch and work to prove it.
Just like the overwhelming majority of "artists" support copyright.
Come on, do you really oppose all copyright at all times in all ways? For books? For copyleft schemes that ensure attribution and free access? It's easy and fun to say "copyright sUx0rs" when all we ever talk about it the RIAA, but have you really thought about this is a broader context? Copyright serves a valid purpose. It's been abused the hell out of lately, but that doesn't mean the concept is wrong.
Just like the overwhelming majority of bankers support the bailout.
Ah, I got nothin'. That's pretty much accurate.
I wish they would, but every experience I've ever had with Cox would suggest that they'll do none of those things. Transparency? Ha. Transparency is for non-pseudo-monopolies.
Hold on now, just because there was an area called "Palestine" doesn't mean that it was a country, much less a sovereign one. For the Allies to use their military and political position to create a new country without the consent of those already living there is morally questionable, but so is any use of force, and one way or another, Israel exists now. Regardless of of how racist Churchill or anyone else was, regardless of how horrible the situation was on all sides (and it was pretty damn horrible), the people living in Israel now need to come to some sort of agreement, and for some elements of the "Palestinian" people to think that resorting to terrorism is a good idea is just idiocy. Would you support the Native Americans if they chose to do the same? I don't particularly like Israel (I oppose religiously-defined governments on principle, and their recent dealings with the palestinians have been horrendous), but all sides need to be seeing what they can do with a bad situation. People are always going to try to take the land and property of other people if they think they can make better use of it, but the answer isn't to turn things into a cycle of endless retribution, it's to try to work out some sort of equitable solution. The palestinians can gain from the existence of the modern infrastructure and government Israel has to offer, and if Israel can overcome its own paranoia and racism, maybe something good could come from it.
Congratulations. You've noticed that the plot of Harry Potter has parallels to real-life persecuted minorities. You now qualify for a degree in obvious literary interpretation! If you like, you might want to go for a PhD - perhaps you could examine Christian symbolism in the Chronicles of Narnia. I see a bright future ahead of you.
Ha - nice, I'll have to remember that one. BTW, how the heck did I get modded overrated? I hadn't been previously rated...does the HH guy read slashdot?
I would have hoped that anyone reading slashdot would have the tech-savvy to know that the above post is a joke, but since apparently some mod thinks it's informative, here's a PSA:
If you follow the instructions in this video, you will not charge your ipod, and all you do is risk damaging it. The video author, Household Hacker, is known for making up completely ridiculous "hacks" and presenting them as true, some of which aren't so obvious that the average person would know the difference. He seems to have put up a bunch of real, though lame hacks recently, and for what that's worth I applaud him, but crap like the video above is positively harming people's ability to learn how electronics work. Now you know, and knowing's half the battle.
What exactly am I supposed to take from the things you told me to look at? I'm not that concerned about old people in Japan being cared for by robots - as long as they aren't suffering for it, what's the harm, other than apparently reminding you of a science fiction movie? What does hyper-inflation have to do with low population growth? Regardless, while it may or may not be true that our current infrastructure depends on constant population growth, constant population growth is not ecologically sustainable. Better that we have some temporary economic disruption while the older generation lacks support than to continue to tax our resources beyond what can be supported.
I guess I just don't feel as strongly that only the parties should be presenting a position. I know that's the fundamental basis of the adversarial system, but I also think that it's one of its most significant flaws. It seems to me that by compromising the "only parties present arguments" rule, letting amici curiae present opinionated argument prevents some of the problems of unequal representation while preserving the core benefit of letting parties be the primary source of argument.
I would think that amici curiae would be less likely to be subject to group polarization in their current position than if they were more closely attached to the litigation - who could be more objective? Randomly polled practitioners and law professors, who haven't done any research on the subject?
By the way, that's an interesting point about the inquisitorial court system - I hadn't thought of it that way. But why don't you mind if the courts did that, but you do if they accept submissions? Just the whole "quasi-interested party" thing? But the people who wrote the law review articles had to have the same sort of interest, or they wouldn't have gone to the trouble of getting published in the first place...
Yes, but presumably the judge already has access to treatises on jury instructions generally - if this were all that the amici were presenting, I don't see it as being very helpful. When you actually get down to the specific question at issue here, you could try to simply present the most relevant material, but something tells me that in most cases, the parties have already done this. Perhaps in a situation where the courts do not have access to the kind of information that is now easily available, I would agree that just presenting a short tutorial on the law of jury instructions would be helpful, and that is probably the role in which amici curiae evolved. However, the situation being what it is, I just don't see the use of this sort of limited assistance.
I guess our disagreement comes down to whether or not it's appropriate for third parties to present analysis of any kind to the court. Would you think it wrong for the judge to read a bunch of opinionated law review articles on the subject while trying to decide the case? What's the difference between that and being presented with amicus curiae briefs? I see allowing legal minds to present arguments on both sides as almost a sort of crowdsourcing - this way, deficiencies in the individual parties' lawyers can be compensated for, and the best consensus on the meaning of the law presented.
I understand where you're coming from. You're right that, in practice, they are supporting one side or the other - the only way it could be otherwise is if the amicus wrote a brief on a point that didn't effect either party, but then it would just be a waste of the judge's time (or, more likely, the clerk's).
Be that as it may, though, I think that they are, on the whole, a good thing. Amicus briefs can serve a useful purpose - they may bring up arguments that the parties missed. Since all they can do to influence the decision is have good arguments or be from impressive authors, I think that the benefit outweighs the harm.
Anyway, I don't think the kind of dispassionate "bringing forward information" you're talking about is really possible. If you're qualified to be writing an amicus brief, you have to be well-versed in the law. If you can't see the effect the information you're presenting would have on the parties, then the information is probably so general as to be useless. If you can see how it effects the outcome, then doesn't it seem sort of ridiculous to have to hold your tongue, and walk the judge just short of the conclusion?
Arguably, I think the briefs are misfiled and that the process of the amicus curiae is being abused; A good amicus brief should, in my opinion, not be filed in support of any particular side, but in defense if a particular argument of law or explanation of fact.
In fairness to the amici, the briefs are on a particular point of law ("whether the Court committed a manifest error of law in instructing the jury that '[t]he act of making copyrighted sound recordings available for electronic distribution on a peer-to-peer network, without license from the copyright owners, violates the copyright owners' exclusive right of distribution, regardless of whether actual distribution has been shown." ), not just in support of one side.
While it does look a bit like astroturfing, the AC's right - Obama does plan (p15) to significantly cut NASA's funding to get money for his education plan.
It's stupid and shortsighted, and probably my biggest objection to Obama, but since McCain also wants to cut NASA's funding, and he's a social conservative, I'll still probably vote for Obama. Anyway, quasi-offtopic, I know, but it is relevant to whether we'll be out there in the future, looking for the sources of things like this.
Are you really so boring that you can't deal with adults enjoying well-told fantasy? Sheesh, grow a little whimsy. Harry Potter is primarily aimed at children, yes, but like any really good children's story it works on a lot of different levels. I'm not 40, but at 24 I'm certainly well above the usual "children's book" age group, and I'm not even slightly ashamed of reading and liking Harry Potter. Maybe if you tried reading an entire book, especially some of the later ones, instead of "bits and pieces", you'd understand. Maybe you wouldn't - different people have different tastes. Regardless, the fact that you don't care for something that you haven't bothered to read in its entirety is no grounds for insulting people who do like it.
Just because the article says "microwave" doesn't mean they'd use the same frequency as a microwave oven. There are many frequency ranges within the microwave spectrum that don't interact strongly with water. Even setting aside safety concerns, it would be idiotic to use a frequency that couples with water because if you did, every passing cloud would absorb a lot of your energy.
It's funny to read this - I can remember seeing something extremely similar, down to the size, impact craters, and orange color, when I was a kid (though it can't have been the same as yours - this would have been early '90s Florida). I'm not sure I can say I believe you, since I'm really pretty confident I imagined it as I was nearly asleep at the time, but it's funny that the experience was so similar. Makes me wonder...
Oops, there's me half-remembering my Constitutional Law. The Constitutional doctrine in question here actually isn't in the Constitution. The Supreme Court interpreted the Commerce clause to mean that, since Congress is granted authority to regulate interstate commerce, the individual states are barred from doing it themselves. It's called the "Dormant Commerce Clause" doctrine.
My mistake doesn't help your argument, though; if we ignore such judge-made "additions", we actually end up in a situation where the states can tax internet transactions all they like.
It is in the Constitution, but what the Constitution actually says is the states can't lay taxes on imports, and generally can't burden interstate commerce, without the consent of Congress. The idea is to prevent the states from having little economic wars with one another, but still allow taxes if they can convince the national Congress that it's necessary.
Thanks, but I wasn't the first - I saw some others wondering about it before I got all the way through the pdfs. Sorry for the snarkiness in my comment, though - I really respect what you do, and that you've been so willing to help people here understand the law. I'm a law student myself, probably going into the patent field, so law & technology stories are always at the top of my interest list.
BTW, I just noticed that that reply was from NYCL, so I retract my (semi-sarcastic) question of whether you've read the link. Point stands, though; I don't see how this constitutes a violation of a C&D.
Have you actually read the document you just linked to? It's far from clear how it shows that they were violating the C&D order. All those reports are from 2007, prior to the cease and desist. I think the real story here is that, since the C&D makes clear that Mediasentry was at no point licensed to operate as a private investigator in Massachusetts, any testimony referring to reports obtained through their unlicensed investigations should be thrown out.
The interesting question in there is apparently whether or not Mediasentry was employed by the RIAA or by a law firm; there's an exception to the license requirement for PIs employed by law firms, so the RIAA is claiming that they didn't employ Mediasentry, their lawyers did.
I've never understood why so many people want H.R. Giger to do the art for Dune. He has a very interesting style, and I think it was perfect for Alien, but I've never once imagined anything like a Giger setpiece when I read Dune. Seriously, people, what kinds of things are you envisioning when you say you want Giger? There is a profound sense of corrupted humanity in his work that doesn't fit with the descriptions of anything in Dune, or even feel appropriate. The Harkonnens were corrupted, sure, but it was an opulent sort of corruption, not the sort of quasi-human organics that Giger draws.
Overweight, yes. Diseased, not so much. Screaming-crazy, covered in boils, barely able to form coherent sentences, not so much. The book's Baron was actually threatening, instead of just ridiculous, because he seemed like exactly the kind of man who would be in charge of a group like the Harkonnens. Realistic villains are usually more frightening than cartoons.