Christoph, well done overall and I'm certainly on your side with respect to the copyright issue, but your position on the lawyers doesn't hold up as well.
Attempting to quash a subpoena is almost standard procedure. Under precisely what law is that "willful ignorance"?
Your response mixes together what the other party knew and did and what his lawyers knew and did. It also mixes together the court's findings-of-fact with what the lawyers knew, should have known, were told, and were required to do. Moreover, you are simply wrong about what the lawyers' responsibility was. Lawyers need not have "personal knowledge" of the facts claimed to be true. They need only believe the facts claimed to be true based on information from the client.
We could certainly argue about whether that's good public policy, but that's the way it is. And finding out midway that the client's story may be false does not necessarily equate to malicious prosecution or abuse of process.
Looks like the OP settled with the non-lawyers early on the MP claims. What result there?
As for the lawyers, the sole piece of evidence the OP seems to have presented that the lawyers knew their clients were lying is a late-October 2007 note. This note was written well after the trial commenced. It doesn't indicate that the lawyers knew or had reason to know from jump-street that the clients were lying. It indicates only (if anything) that perhaps they were not aggressive enough in doing fact investigation or in terminating the litigation already underway.
Am I missing something? If not, the courts' decisions appear to be decent.
Actually, just now the first Google result for "How do I compute the coupling coefficient for a transformer given the data sheet parameters?" is this thread.;-)
I guess "Thinking Different" means using child- and forced-labor sweatshops to produce hot gear? Excellent! I can't wait to rush out and buy several pairs, so eager to line Phil Knight's pockets! Better still, Nike can soon use the Nike+ wireless transmitters to monitor the motion of the 5-year-olds manufacturing the shoes, and get the bosses over to the slackers for a flogging that much faster. This will mean increased productivity -- no price drop, but Nike's profits will increase! Yay!
Re:Interesting story, but...
on
Gmail vs Pine
·
· Score: 1
It's just non-American usage (although becoming more common in the States). Corporations and such are viewed linguistically as plural groups rather than as the singular entities the legal fiction would suggest. It's a bit maddening though exchanging drafts with British colleagues, with each side correcting the other side's usage and even punctuation. Aah! - the crises over use of the serial comma!:-)
Yes, Führer and Komissar are spot on. It is a stupid American meme spread by people either unaware of or reveling in the history of the Russian Czars, who on security measures seemed to have just 2 methods: the execution and the pogrom. The term is most offensive when used by our Dear Leaders (e.g., the "Drug Czar"), but really should be rejected across the board (imagine the headline, "Apple to Appoint Adm. Pointdexter to New Position of Chief Security Stalin (CSS)").
Without wishing for the lives of the employees of the Sony conglorporation, seeing Sony take a large hit would make me happy. Sony deserves heavy criminal prosecution for the rootkit assaults and other intentional vandalism, including perhaps liquidation of the music group. But this won't happen; the goverment is either too afraid or too corrupt. So anything that hurts Sony is in the first instance just a small piece of the negative karma owed the company...
I'm surprised that the Renesis redlines at 9500. I had an RX-3 ('74, I think) fitted out with a 13B engine, and the redline was 11K. I can't imagine that transmission was sturdier than the new RX-8 tranny (I think my RX-3's was stock)...
How seriously has the torque been bolloxed up in the RX-8? My RX-3 felt like a motorcycle at times, and that with stock porting!
No. The license must be obtained by the university, which is the "exporter" here, and the license would be required before the university provided the exported item/info to the foreign national. Whether and when the deemed exportee leaves the country is not relevant.
The idea of a "deemed export" is that the transfer within the United States of the item to a foreign national is "deemed" to be similar to the transfer of the item overseas to foreign nationals in the foreign state. Export controls control the actions of the exporter, i.e., the person who has the item/info and transfers it to the foreign national.
I understand that the DoD is hoping to make these revisions to the deemed export rule even more restrictive. At a presentation recently at which both Commerce and DoD officials were present, there was talk from DoD about making the restriction based on the country of birth of the deemed exportee, rather than just the country of citizenship - even if the foreign-born deemed exportee was a U.S. "green card" holder or a naturalized U.S. citizen.
The guy from Commerce apparently said that Commerce was not interested in this approach, but, well, we all know who has the juice in DC, and in a Commerce v. DoD competition, guess who'd win?
A problem with a nation-of-birth basis, from a theoretical standpoint beyond the obvious practical and fairness issues, is the conflict presented between the DoD's concept and the very idea of naturalization.
Slashdot Mirror
Christoph, well done overall and I'm certainly on your side with respect to the copyright issue, but your position on the lawyers doesn't hold up as well.
Attempting to quash a subpoena is almost standard procedure. Under precisely what law is that "willful ignorance"?
Your response mixes together what the other party knew and did and what his lawyers knew and did. It also mixes together the court's findings-of-fact with what the lawyers knew, should have known, were told, and were required to do. Moreover, you are simply wrong about what the lawyers' responsibility was. Lawyers need not have "personal knowledge" of the facts claimed to be true. They need only believe the facts claimed to be true based on information from the client. We could certainly argue about whether that's good public policy, but that's the way it is. And finding out midway that the client's story may be false does not necessarily equate to malicious prosecution or abuse of process.
Looks like the OP settled with the non-lawyers early on the MP claims. What result there?
As for the lawyers, the sole piece of evidence the OP seems to have presented that the lawyers knew their clients were lying is a late-October 2007 note. This note was written well after the trial commenced. It doesn't indicate that the lawyers knew or had reason to know from jump-street that the clients were lying. It indicates only (if anything) that perhaps they were not aggressive enough in doing fact investigation or in terminating the litigation already underway.
Am I missing something? If not, the courts' decisions appear to be decent.
Actually, just now the first Google result for "How do I compute the coupling coefficient for a transformer given the data sheet parameters?" is this thread. ;-)
I guess "Thinking Different" means using child- and forced-labor sweatshops to produce hot gear? Excellent! I can't wait to rush out and buy several pairs, so eager to line Phil Knight's pockets! Better still, Nike can soon use the Nike+ wireless transmitters to monitor the motion of the 5-year-olds manufacturing the shoes, and get the bosses over to the slackers for a flogging that much faster. This will mean increased productivity -- no price drop, but Nike's profits will increase! Yay!
It's just non-American usage (although becoming more common in the States). Corporations and such are viewed linguistically as plural groups rather than as the singular entities the legal fiction would suggest. It's a bit maddening though exchanging drafts with British colleagues, with each side correcting the other side's usage and even punctuation. Aah! - the crises over use of the serial comma! :-)
Yes, Führer and Komissar are spot on. It is a stupid American meme spread by people either unaware of or reveling in the history of the Russian Czars, who on security measures seemed to have just 2 methods: the execution and the pogrom. The term is most offensive when used by our Dear Leaders (e.g., the "Drug Czar"), but really should be rejected across the board (imagine the headline, "Apple to Appoint Adm. Pointdexter to New Position of Chief Security Stalin (CSS)").
Without wishing for the lives of the employees of the Sony conglorporation, seeing Sony take a large hit would make me happy. Sony deserves heavy criminal prosecution for the rootkit assaults and other intentional vandalism, including perhaps liquidation of the music group. But this won't happen; the goverment is either too afraid or too corrupt. So anything that hurts Sony is in the first instance just a small piece of the negative karma owed the company...
I'm surprised that the Renesis redlines at 9500. I had an RX-3 ('74, I think) fitted out with a 13B engine, and the redline was 11K. I can't imagine that transmission was sturdier than the new RX-8 tranny (I think my RX-3's was stock)...
How seriously has the torque been bolloxed up in the RX-8? My RX-3 felt like a motorcycle at times, and that with stock porting!
No. The license must be obtained by the university, which is the "exporter" here, and the license would be required before the university provided the exported item/info to the foreign national. Whether and when the deemed exportee leaves the country is not relevant.
The idea of a "deemed export" is that the transfer within the United States of the item to a foreign national is "deemed" to be similar to the transfer of the item overseas to foreign nationals in the foreign state. Export controls control the actions of the exporter, i.e., the person who has the item/info and transfers it to the foreign national.
I understand that the DoD is hoping to make these revisions to the deemed export rule even more restrictive. At a presentation recently at which both Commerce and DoD officials were present, there was talk from DoD about making the restriction based on the country of birth of the deemed exportee, rather than just the country of citizenship - even if the foreign-born deemed exportee was a U.S. "green card" holder or a naturalized U.S. citizen.
The guy from Commerce apparently said that Commerce was not interested in this approach, but, well, we all know who has the juice in DC, and in a Commerce v. DoD competition, guess who'd win?
A problem with a nation-of-birth basis, from a theoretical standpoint beyond the obvious practical and fairness issues, is the conflict presented between the DoD's concept and the very idea of naturalization.