The laws of each State are different. This is true in other countries.
I suggest you consult a local attorney at law in your jurisdiction, with a knowledge of Intellectual Property law.
I suspect you MAY be looking for a "durable" power of attorney. (That means the power of attorney survives your death.) The power would instruct the person you chose "At the time of my death, please do X, Y and Z." Then the power dies, and is of no further effect.
If there are huge financial implications, you might consider having the holder of the power post a bond to insure full performance.
But please, get a professional to help with this. I don't try and fix my computer, because.... well.... I'm clueless. As far as I'm concerned it's all magic and that's the end of it. It took me three tries to get this posted, how's that for clueless?
Just my humble opinion.
Yes, the United States is not a pure democracy. Most of the posters have that correct.
What is NOT true is where the original poster said Utah lawmakers passed a bill today to force public school teachers to teach that the USA is a republic, not a democracy, "BECAUSE A DEMOCRACY WOULD HAVE DEMOCRAT IN IT.
I can find that language nowhere in TFA or any associated news stories.
I was intrigued by the Court's interest in the "easily implemented measures to prevent unlawful uses."
That really sort of makes sense when you think about it. I'm not responsible for everything that happens on my land, but I'm required to take reasonable steps to stop unreasonable harm.
I wonder if ISPs will required to take "reasonable steps" to prevent child porn, or spam, or risk liability under the reasoning of this decision?
Tj
The test in most jurisdictions is some form of "scientific reliability." If the test is generally accepted as reliable, by a preponderance of the scientific community, the results are admissible.
This type of defense has been tried before, but has been rejected in most American jurisdictions.
NORMALLY the Court would reject the Defendant's motion to dismiss, but allow Defendant to depose the corporate officials (at Defendant's expense.) The Defendant could then offer expert testimony as to why the Defendant felt the test was not reliable. If the Court continued to believe the test was scientifically reliable, and the issue of intoxication, including the technical evidence would be submitted as a question of fact for the jury.
I can understand the corporation's reluctance. I suspect if a good technie knew all the details of the radar gun, it might be possible to craft a device to indicate 43 mph on the radar gun when the true speed was something approaching Warp Factor.
The corporation might be compelled to testify, however the corporation could apply for a "protective order" prohibiting the use of the information beyond the criminal trial at issue.
Tj
Although it is always dangerous to try and "read" a judge or infer motives into an order from the bench, I think Soko has it exactly correct. The judge appears to be doing his best to leave SCO no avenue of appeal.
Just IMHO... Yes,I really was a judge. Retired now
Slashdot Mirror
The laws of each State are different. This is true in other countries. I suggest you consult a local attorney at law in your jurisdiction, with a knowledge of Intellectual Property law. I suspect you MAY be looking for a "durable" power of attorney. (That means the power of attorney survives your death.) The power would instruct the person you chose "At the time of my death, please do X, Y and Z." Then the power dies, and is of no further effect. If there are huge financial implications, you might consider having the holder of the power post a bond to insure full performance. But please, get a professional to help with this. I don't try and fix my computer, because.... well.... I'm clueless. As far as I'm concerned it's all magic and that's the end of it. It took me three tries to get this posted, how's that for clueless? Just my humble opinion.
Yes, the United States is not a pure democracy. Most of the posters have that correct. What is NOT true is where the original poster said Utah lawmakers passed a bill today to force public school teachers to teach that the USA is a republic, not a democracy, "BECAUSE A DEMOCRACY WOULD HAVE DEMOCRAT IN IT. I can find that language nowhere in TFA or any associated news stories.
I was intrigued by the Court's interest in the "easily implemented measures to prevent unlawful uses." That really sort of makes sense when you think about it. I'm not responsible for everything that happens on my land, but I'm required to take reasonable steps to stop unreasonable harm. I wonder if ISPs will required to take "reasonable steps" to prevent child porn, or spam, or risk liability under the reasoning of this decision? Tj
The test in most jurisdictions is some form of "scientific reliability." If the test is generally accepted as reliable, by a preponderance of the scientific community, the results are admissible. This type of defense has been tried before, but has been rejected in most American jurisdictions. NORMALLY the Court would reject the Defendant's motion to dismiss, but allow Defendant to depose the corporate officials (at Defendant's expense.) The Defendant could then offer expert testimony as to why the Defendant felt the test was not reliable. If the Court continued to believe the test was scientifically reliable, and the issue of intoxication, including the technical evidence would be submitted as a question of fact for the jury. I can understand the corporation's reluctance. I suspect if a good technie knew all the details of the radar gun, it might be possible to craft a device to indicate 43 mph on the radar gun when the true speed was something approaching Warp Factor. The corporation might be compelled to testify, however the corporation could apply for a "protective order" prohibiting the use of the information beyond the criminal trial at issue. Tj
Although it is always dangerous to try and "read" a judge or infer motives into an order from the bench, I think Soko has it exactly correct. The judge appears to be doing his best to leave SCO no avenue of appeal. Just IMHO... Yes,I really was a judge. Retired now