I bought WP 4.1 after reading an Nov. 1985 InfoWorld review titled: "WordPerfect 4.1: The Best, Improved." Later versions did have specialized features I found helpful for a legal practice, but 4.1 did all the basics and did them exceptionally well.
A copyright is a legal monopoly. So is a patent. A fraudulently claimed copyright is also a monopoly, but not a legal one. Prove copyright misuse (easier said than done) and you can recover treble damages and attorney fees under the antitrust laws.
Disclaimer: I am a lawyer, but I am not a patent lawyer. This is not legal advice. You are not my client.
A client consulted me about a contract to provide programming to his customer. The customer's legal department had prepared a contract for services which included an assignment of intellectual property for the contracted work, a nondisclosure clause, etc. Buried in the contract was an agreement to indemnify and defend the customer from all claims of infringement of the intellectual property of any third party.
What a great idea! For the cost of some software you want to have anyway, you can get your contractor to pay for the defense of a software patent lawsuit no matter how ridiculous the patent is. In my client's case the agreed price for the programming was less than $6k. He declined the job when the customer wouldn't modify the indemnity clause.
Here is the truth about the JFK assassination. I don't know what happened. I was in New York City at the time. I didn't hear about the shooting until afterwards. So I will always firmly believe that I don't know the full truth.
Bullets? Grassy Knoll? Who cares? JFK died and a piece of my innocence and idealism died with him.
The Ninth Circuit said these fields were mandatory. If you don't complete them, you can't complete the listing. That was a crucial point to the decision, which I read on Lexis.
It doesn't matter on appeal whether the facts are accurate. The Court of Appeals almost never reviews facts found by the district court. If the record on appeal says the fields are mandatory, then for purposes of appeal they are mandatory.
I am an attorney who has defended landlords and apartment managers in fair housing cases since 1985. I believe that housing discrimination is wrong and should be illegal. There are First Amendment issues, however, where the landlords only use speech without threats or incitement to violence. Drawing the line between speech protected by the First Amendment and statements of discriminatory preference is not always easy.
For more information about fair housing laws, look at my web site: http://www.msslc.com/
Not a day goes by (except for vacations, and not always then) that I don't Google search many times. Google has revolutionized my life. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
I had to get a temporary teaching certificate/license or whatever they called it to teach adult ed sponsored by a California high school district. I didn't have to take the ed courses, but I did take the test - mostly English and math - they required to qualify as a high school teacher.
I arrived 20 minutes late to the exam (car trouble) and I was the first person finished. I could have answered almost all the questions in sixth grade. When I heard some of the people taking the test complain about how hard it was, I almost gagged. To that extent, paranode is right that it doesn't take much to become a teacher.
I went to public schools and had some really wonderful teachers. I particularly recall my high school Geometry and Latin teachers. They deserved to be paid several times as much as some lesser teachers.
No court would award fees of $5,000 per hour in a copyright case, even if the winning party actually paid that much. The law provides for a "reasonable" attorney fee, and that isn't reasonable.
Exorbitant fees are usual in cases where a fund of money is recovered for distribution to a class. The lawyers for the class can get a percentage of the fund (maybe 20%, but it depends on the judge) even if the resulting hourly fee is very high. But this can't happen when defending against a copyright infringement action.
A common interview question is: "Do you have any questions you'd like to ask us?" Much of what the nice people who want to help a candidate want can be done if the interviewee asks a simple question:
"What qualities do people who have been most successful at this job display?"
You can answer that in a way that highlights what the candidate needs to work on. Your answer is not about this candidate but about people who were successful at the job. You are not judging the candidate's qualifications but explaining the job. It is easier to be clear about this if the candidate is the one who has phrased the question this way. So if anyone here is applying for a job and going for an interview, memorize this question.
I actually am a lawyer. However, this answer does not create a lawyer-client relationship with anyone who reads it. You should rely for legal advice only on an attorney you have retained and who has a professional duty to advise you after becoming familiar with the facts and the law of your situation.
True, but section 804(c), 42 U.S.C. section 3604(c), is the part that refers to a statement or advertisement which expresses a preference, limitation or discrimination. So while you may be able to discriminate in renting a room or a unit in a four-unit building one of which is occupied by the owner, you cannot advertise in a discriminatory way.
Did you ever see a toddler about to step in front of an oncoming car that couldn't possibly see him? I can't bear to watch. You are a major lawsuit waiting to happen.
You can limit the number of occupants as long as you allow at least two persons per bedroom and are not using this as a subterfuge to avoid renting to families. For example, you can't take the door off a bedroom and call it a den to reduce the number of occupants. The law is not clear as to how many people must be allowed in a studio. If you do allow two or more people in an apartment, you must rent to an adult with a child on the same terms as two adults. You can't refuse to rent to a family because the apartment is on the second floor, or has a dangerous balcony or poor sound insulation. If the unit is dangerous, fix it. If it is noisy, explain that to all tenants, not just those with children.
If you read my first post, you should have noticed that I will not sue you. I defend landlords and property managers. I want to keep you out of court, not make a killing by taking everything you have. Not all lawyers are like me. If you choose to rent to whomever you want regardless of your legal duties, you can expect to find one of the other kind of lawyers at your throat sooner or later. Don't blame the lawyer, either. It will be your own fault.
No one can order bigots to rent housing to people they hate. But the law can and does forbid and penalize anyone who rents residential property from discriminating illegally. If a bigot wants to rent his property, he must comply with the law. If he can't do that, he can use it himself or keep it vacant. He can also sell the property, providing he does not discriminate illegally in the sale.
The fair housing law is severe and the penalties are drastic. But the problem of discrimination - not just racial discrimination - is a very serious one. I do not like to weigh one person's freedom against another. However, even at ancient common law, one's right to use one's property was limited by the obligation not to injure another in doing so. I think a similar rule should apply here.
I am a fair housing attorney. Before anyone goes ballistic, I should explain that I only defend fair housing cases. I have been handling this type of case for over 20 years and have never represented a plaintiff. I defend these cases because they are a challenge to win and the consequences of defeat are absolutely horrendous, both financially and emotionally. I have never lost a fair housing case. I am a lawyer, not a magician. I keep my clients from defeat by promptly settling cases they cannot possibly win.
Stating an illegal preference is clearly illegal under the Fair Housing Act. The law does not only condemn racial discrimination. Federal fair housing law protects all but a very short list of persons:
1. Current users of illegal drugs. Property owners can refuse to rent based on that use. 42 U.S.C. 3602(h).
2. Transvestites, who are not considered to be handicapped. Act of Sept. 13, 1988, P.L. 100-430, 6(b)(3), 102 Stat. 1622.
3. Persons who pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others or who would cause substantial physical damage to the property of others. 42 U.S.C. 3604(f)(9).
4. Illegal ("undocumented") aliens. The Fair Housing Act does not prevent discrimination based on citizenship status. Espinoza v. Hillwood Square Mutual Association 522 F.Supp. 559 (E.D. Va. 1981). See "Response to concerns about housing security following September 11, 2001." http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/library/sept11.cfm /
Under federal law, discrimination is illegal when it is based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. 3604. In California, it is also illegal to discriminate on the basis of ancestry, marital status, age, sexual orientation, source of income or medical condition. California Government Code 12955(a) and 12926. California Civil Code 51-51.3. California also prohibits "arbitrary" discrimination. Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV, 52 Cal. 3d 1142 (1991). (I realize that the craigslist case was brought in Illinois, but I am not licensed to practice law there.)
Since everyone has a gender, everyone is protected from sex-based discrimination. Similarly, everyone is either in a family or not, has a race or color and a national origin, and either has or does not have a religion. "Handicap" or disability is a very broad category. The law also protects people from discrimination because they associate with a person in a protected category or because they are incorrectly perceived to be in a protected category. For practical purposes, just about everyone is covered by the Fair Housing Act.
A landlord cannot advertise that the apartment is near a church or synagogue because this implies an illegal preference based on religion. The Mexican restaurant isn't a big problem, but saying the neighborhood is Hispanic implies that anyone else is not welcome. "Godly, Christian Male" expresses both a religious and a gender preference; but it's fine to require cleanliness. The ad about "2 guys in their mid-twenties who throw parties all the time" is illegal based on a gender preference; but the landlord could ask for people who don't throw parties. The last four ads may sound fine, but they imply that a family with children would not be welcome.
Renting residential property is a business, and property owners and managers are held to a strict standard of compliance with fair housing laws. Amateurs who do not bother to learn the rules are likely to get bitten by them. I have written a number of fair housing articles which are available at http://www.msslc.com/
I believe that the federal judge who dismissed the craigslist case acted correctly. While the statements made were illegal under the Fair Housing Act, craigslist should not be liable under the CDA. I doubt this decision will be appealed, and if it is I confidently predict it will be upheld.
My alarm clock doesn't update for DST. In fact, my new bare-bones VCR solves this problem and the flashing clock problem very simply. It doesn't have a clock. How do you set it in advance to record a program? I don't have a clue because I can't find any programs worth recording. I use it to play movies I don't want to buy a second time.
A long time ago, I interviewed with a major company. The interview went well, and they asked me to take a personality test, required under their hiring procedures. The test was given by a psychologist off-site, not by in-house HR.
I went to the library and checked out William H. Whyte's classic, "The Organization Man." In addition to some pointers that helped me understand what the test was about and what business organzations were likely to want from it, there was a sample test in the appendix. Knock me over with a feather: the psychologist gave me the very same test the next day.
How did I do? They hired someone else. About a year later, they called and offered me the same job, but I had gone elsewhere by then.
I bought a Celeron PC, 128 MB Ram, 40GB HD at Fry's Electronics last June with WinXP for $250. Fourth of July sale had it for $199; and Fry's gave me a refund for the difference since I purchased less than 30 days earlier.
I also spent $30 for a 2-year Fry's extended warranty, figuring that the cheaper the computer the more likely I was to need it. Sure enough, it's at Fry's right now for replacement. Fortunately Fry's agreed to transfer the hard drive from the original computer so I don't have to reinstall programs and reload data from backups. They are also tranferring the RAM I added.
Slashdot Mirror
I bought WP 4.1 after reading an Nov. 1985 InfoWorld review titled: "WordPerfect 4.1: The Best, Improved." Later versions did have specialized features I found helpful for a legal practice, but 4.1 did all the basics and did them exceptionally well.
Exactly right. This should be modded up.
A copyright is a legal monopoly. So is a patent. A fraudulently claimed copyright is also a monopoly, but not a legal one. Prove copyright misuse (easier said than done) and you can recover treble damages and attorney fees under the antitrust laws.
A client consulted me about a contract to provide programming to his customer. The customer's legal department had prepared a contract for services which included an assignment of intellectual property for the contracted work, a nondisclosure clause, etc. Buried in the contract was an agreement to indemnify and defend the customer from all claims of infringement of the intellectual property of any third party.
What a great idea! For the cost of some software you want to have anyway, you can get your contractor to pay for the defense of a software patent lawsuit no matter how ridiculous the patent is. In my client's case the agreed price for the programming was less than $6k. He declined the job when the customer wouldn't modify the indemnity clause.
So you think George Bernard Shaw was a gentleman?
Bullets? Grassy Knoll? Who cares? JFK died and a piece of my innocence and idealism died with him.
It doesn't matter on appeal whether the facts are accurate. The Court of Appeals almost never reviews facts found by the district court. If the record on appeal says the fields are mandatory, then for purposes of appeal they are mandatory.
I am an attorney who has defended landlords and apartment managers in fair housing cases since 1985. I believe that housing discrimination is wrong and should be illegal. There are First Amendment issues, however, where the landlords only use speech without threats or incitement to violence. Drawing the line between speech protected by the First Amendment and statements of discriminatory preference is not always easy.
For more information about fair housing laws, look at my web site: http://www.msslc.com/
Insane? Try: "Insanely Great."
Not a day goes by (except for vacations, and not always then) that I don't Google search many times. Google has revolutionized my life. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
I had to get a temporary teaching certificate/license or whatever they called it to teach adult ed sponsored by a California high school district. I didn't have to take the ed courses, but I did take the test - mostly English and math - they required to qualify as a high school teacher. I arrived 20 minutes late to the exam (car trouble) and I was the first person finished. I could have answered almost all the questions in sixth grade. When I heard some of the people taking the test complain about how hard it was, I almost gagged. To that extent, paranode is right that it doesn't take much to become a teacher. I went to public schools and had some really wonderful teachers. I particularly recall my high school Geometry and Latin teachers. They deserved to be paid several times as much as some lesser teachers.
No court would award fees of $5,000 per hour in a copyright case, even if the winning party actually paid that much. The law provides for a "reasonable" attorney fee, and that isn't reasonable.
Exorbitant fees are usual in cases where a fund of money is recovered for distribution to a class. The lawyers for the class can get a percentage of the fund (maybe 20%, but it depends on the judge) even if the resulting hourly fee is very high. But this can't happen when defending against a copyright infringement action.
OS/2, baby. "A better DOS than DOS. A better Windows than Windows."
A common interview question is: "Do you have any questions you'd like to ask us?" Much of what the nice people who want to help a candidate want can be done if the interviewee asks a simple question:
"What qualities do people who have been most successful at this job display?"
You can answer that in a way that highlights what the candidate needs to work on. Your answer is not about this candidate but about people who were successful at the job. You are not judging the candidate's qualifications but explaining the job. It is easier to be clear about this if the candidate is the one who has phrased the question this way. So if anyone here is applying for a job and going for an interview, memorize this question.
I actually am a lawyer. However, this answer does not create a lawyer-client relationship with anyone who reads it. You should rely for legal advice only on an attorney you have retained and who has a professional duty to advise you after becoming familiar with the facts and the law of your situation.
True, but section 804(c), 42 U.S.C. section 3604(c), is the part that refers to a statement or advertisement which expresses a preference, limitation or discrimination. So while you may be able to discriminate in renting a room or a unit in a four-unit building one of which is occupied by the owner, you cannot advertise in a discriminatory way.
You can limit the number of occupants as long as you allow at least two persons per bedroom and are not using this as a subterfuge to avoid renting to families. For example, you can't take the door off a bedroom and call it a den to reduce the number of occupants. The law is not clear as to how many people must be allowed in a studio. If you do allow two or more people in an apartment, you must rent to an adult with a child on the same terms as two adults. You can't refuse to rent to a family because the apartment is on the second floor, or has a dangerous balcony or poor sound insulation. If the unit is dangerous, fix it. If it is noisy, explain that to all tenants, not just those with children.
If you read my first post, you should have noticed that I will not sue you. I defend landlords and property managers. I want to keep you out of court, not make a killing by taking everything you have. Not all lawyers are like me. If you choose to rent to whomever you want regardless of your legal duties, you can expect to find one of the other kind of lawyers at your throat sooner or later. Don't blame the lawyer, either. It will be your own fault.
The fair housing law is severe and the penalties are drastic. But the problem of discrimination - not just racial discrimination - is a very serious one. I do not like to weigh one person's freedom against another. However, even at ancient common law, one's right to use one's property was limited by the obligation not to injure another in doing so. I think a similar rule should apply here.
I am a fair housing attorney. Before anyone goes ballistic, I should explain that I only defend fair housing cases. I have been handling this type of case for over 20 years and have never represented a plaintiff. I defend these cases because they are a challenge to win and the consequences of defeat are absolutely horrendous, both financially and emotionally. I have never lost a fair housing case. I am a lawyer, not a magician. I keep my clients from defeat by promptly settling cases they cannot possibly win.
Stating an illegal preference is clearly illegal under the Fair Housing Act. The law does not only condemn racial discrimination. Federal fair housing law protects all but a very short list of persons:
1. Current users of illegal drugs. Property owners can refuse to rent based on that use. 42 U.S.C. 3602(h).
2. Transvestites, who are not considered to be handicapped. Act of Sept. 13, 1988, P.L. 100-430, 6(b)(3), 102 Stat. 1622.
3. Persons who pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others or who would cause substantial physical damage to the property of others. 42 U.S.C. 3604(f)(9).
4. Illegal ("undocumented") aliens. The Fair Housing Act does not prevent discrimination based on citizenship status. Espinoza v. Hillwood Square Mutual Association 522 F.Supp. 559 (E.D. Va. 1981). See "Response to concerns about housing security following September 11, 2001." http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/library/sept11.cfm /
Under federal law, discrimination is illegal when it is based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. 3604. In California, it is also illegal to discriminate on the basis of ancestry, marital status, age, sexual orientation, source of income or medical condition. California Government Code 12955(a) and 12926. California Civil Code 51-51.3. California also prohibits "arbitrary" discrimination. Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV, 52 Cal. 3d 1142 (1991). (I realize that the craigslist case was brought in Illinois, but I am not licensed to practice law there.)
Since everyone has a gender, everyone is protected from sex-based discrimination. Similarly, everyone is either in a family or not, has a race or color and a national origin, and either has or does not have a religion. "Handicap" or disability is a very broad category. The law also protects people from discrimination because they associate with a person in a protected category or because they are incorrectly perceived to be in a protected category. For practical purposes, just about everyone is covered by the Fair Housing Act.
A landlord cannot advertise that the apartment is near a church or synagogue because this implies an illegal preference based on religion. The Mexican restaurant isn't a big problem, but saying the neighborhood is Hispanic implies that anyone else is not welcome. "Godly, Christian Male" expresses both a religious and a gender preference; but it's fine to require cleanliness. The ad about "2 guys in their mid-twenties who throw parties all the time" is illegal based on a gender preference; but the landlord could ask for people who don't throw parties. The last four ads may sound fine, but they imply that a family with children would not be welcome.
Renting residential property is a business, and property owners and managers are held to a strict standard of compliance with fair housing laws. Amateurs who do not bother to learn the rules are likely to get bitten by them. I have written a number of fair housing articles which are available at http://www.msslc.com/ I believe that the federal judge who dismissed the craigslist case acted correctly. While the statements made were illegal under the Fair Housing Act, craigslist should not be liable under the CDA. I doubt this decision will be appealed, and if it is I confidently predict it will be upheld.
Voltaire said that first. He also said it wasn't an empire, either. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/v/voltair e140970.html
My alarm clock doesn't update for DST. In fact, my new bare-bones VCR solves this problem and the flashing clock problem very simply. It doesn't have a clock. How do you set it in advance to record a program? I don't have a clue because I can't find any programs worth recording. I use it to play movies I don't want to buy a second time.
It was Laocoon, not Cassandra. In John Dryden's translation of Virgil's Aeneid:
"Laocoon, follow'd by a num'rous crowd,
Ran from the fort, and cried, from far, aloud:
'O wretched countrymen! What fury reigns?
What more than madness has possess'd your brains?
Think you the Grecians from your coasts are gone?
And are Ulysses' arts no better known?
"This hollow fabric either must inclose,
Within its blind recess, our secret foes;
Or 't is an engine rais'd above the town,
T' o'erlook the walls, and then to batter down.
Somewhat is sure design'd, by fraud or force:
Trust not their presents, nor admit the horse.'"
A long time ago, I interviewed with a major company. The interview went well, and they asked me to take a personality test, required under their hiring procedures. The test was given by a psychologist off-site, not by in-house HR.
I went to the library and checked out William H. Whyte's classic, "The Organization Man." In addition to some pointers that helped me understand what the test was about and what business organzations were likely to want from it, there was a sample test in the appendix. Knock me over with a feather: the psychologist gave me the very same test the next day.
How did I do? They hired someone else. About a year later, they called and offered me the same job, but I had gone elsewhere by then.
I bought a Celeron PC, 128 MB Ram, 40GB HD at Fry's Electronics last June with WinXP for $250. Fourth of July sale had it for $199; and Fry's gave me a refund for the difference since I purchased less than 30 days earlier.
I also spent $30 for a 2-year Fry's extended warranty, figuring that the cheaper the computer the more likely I was to need it. Sure enough, it's at Fry's right now for replacement. Fortunately Fry's agreed to transfer the hard drive from the original computer so I don't have to reinstall programs and reload data from backups. They are also tranferring the RAM I added.
Moral: you get what you pay for.
54 degrees 40 minutes or fight!