I'm not a lawyer either, but my understanding is that EPIC would have to appeal (to the relevant Court of Appeals -- I'm not sure what that is officially called for the D.C. Circuit) and lose before they could make a petition for certiorari, which is a petition to persuade the Supreme Court to hear their case. EPIC can't even appeal because they missed the deadline for doing so. That means they don't get to appeal to the Supreme Court either.
SCOTUS has already decided that the reason for which the trial court upheld the denial of EPIC's FOIA request is no longer valid. Unfortunately, the ruling did not come in time to help EPIC, whose attorneys apparently knew about the case before the Supreme Court but did not appeal EPIC's case in the allowed time for appeal.
Read the opinion linked from the summary. The basis of the ruling denying the motion for reconsideration was that it was untimely and filed after the deadline for appeal. EPIC had options to delay the ruling in their case pending the outcome of Milner v. Department of the Navy in the Supreme Court, and apparently, the attorneys for EPIC knew about that case. So, the underlying reason that EPIC lost initially was overturned by the Supreme Court, but because EPIC did not appeal within sixty days, they have no further relief. The relevant appellate court would dismiss the appeal as untimely, so it would never get to a petition for certiorari.
For example, if someone promised to give me a penny for every breath they took, even if I don't own their air, I should still be able to collect on that (of course it's again murky if I had previously convinced them I owned the air, or I would poison it if they didn't pay,...). Probably the most common version of this sort of agreement that I run across is when some kid comes up to me and asks for $0.25 to go toward cancer research fundraiser personnel for every lap he walks on the high school track.
I am not a lawyer, but one characteristic of a valid contract is consideration. Each party to a contract must incur a legal detriment of some kind -- that is, each kind needs to give up something of value, and each party needs to receive something of value. I don't know that either example you give constitutes a valid contract because neither has consideration. Also, the first agreement was probably made by someone not of sound mind, and the second was made by a minor.
Pedantic enough yet?
As it applies to patents, though, if party A licenses a patent from party B, and the patent is later found to be invalid, and somehow no lawyer on either side thought to include any language on this situation (which means the parties should really find better lawyers), my guess is that the contract would be invalid due to lack of consideration. Of course, that's only a guess. If there are ongoing licensing fees, though, I would imagine party B would have a tough time collecting on any future fees.
Any lawyers are encouraged to correct what I have said here, as it is probably dangerously misinformative in some way.
I'd think it would be a little bit of a stretch from there to Eamon, but I get the point. Eamon is still around, by the way. Pretty fun stuff at the time.
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
(To finish the form, I would need to know what economic solution you are proposing.)
Well, as TFA mentions, AffirmTrust apparently does this now, "coincidentally" starting on the day of the breach.
Another commenter mentioned CACert, which is great except that I don't want my users to have to install a certificate or bypass a warning to use my site.
If they're cases arising from the same allegations, and the original cases were dismissed with prejudice, any competent lawyer should be able to get the suits dismissed due to the doctrine of res judicata. That's much simpler than trying to make any other arguments as to standing, etc.
If the cases are dismissed without prejudice, then of course they can be refiled elsewhere, since there was no final judgment on the cases.
The only way you'll be safe under this regime is to require everyone in the supply chain uses FOSS.
Unfortunately, this could, and likely would, go the other way. Having valid Microsoft licenses would likely become a standard contract term for doing business with certain large companies, so the overseas company likely would have to use MS products even if they otherwise would have just avoided them and used FOSS in compliance with the relevant license terms.
It depends on the court, but Hennepin County at least is a little messed up. I live in Dakota County but have had no contact with its court system. I wish for the sake of the defendant in the present case that he'd been able to keep the original judge in the case, John Q. McShane. I've appeared before him in a civil case where I was pro se, and while I do not completely agree with all his rulings in the case, I can say he seemed like a good, fair, and predictable judge to me. I don't think he would have let some of this nonsense go on. I know he had no problem putting opposing counsel in his place when he started making stupid arguments.
Conciliation court in Hennepin County, on the other hand, is a completely unaccountable kangaroo court, but that has nothing to do with the subject of the article.
It's Minnesota, and 5/6 of the jurors in a civil case must agree. They probably ended up with a seven-member jury because, in Minnesota, if there are alternate jurors, and all the jurors watch the whole trial, all the jurors participate in deliberations. So, a six-member jury plus an alternate is probably what happened here.
I don't know where courts get off sending things like this out.
From reading the document, it appears to have been a proposed order submitted by plaintiff's counsel. This is typical in motion practice. To save time, the Court can just use it.
Or, Yahoo did. Besides being listed as a sponsor on the NASA TV page, if one looks at the Windows Media link (for instance) and examines the ASX file, one notes a reference to "http://playlist.yahoo.com/makeplaylist.dll?id=1369080&segment=149773". See for yourself (probably using wget).
In skimming through the decision, I noticed that the legislative history of Chapter 149 (the relevant law being overturned in this instance) was discussed. It really looks like Chapter 149 was bought and paid for by the defendant in the case; yet, I did not notice any discussion of that matter. Perhaps someone who read the decision, or its concurrences, more thoroughly could comment.
This type of legislative issue tends to be of interest to Slashdot readers, judging by some of their comments.
First day of a new job (not my current one, thankfully)... Systems guy is setting up my workstation and tells me that they use Notes there. I quote: "If you like Outlook, you'll love Lotus Notes!" Yes, really. My initial thought was, if I despise Outlook, does that mean I'll really loathe Notes?
Actually, I did like it better than Outlook 2003, but that's not saying much. Outlook 2007 (current job's mandated mail client) beats Notes to a bloody pulp, and I still dislike it quite a lot.
Understand this about autism/Aspergers and pretty much any state considered disordered as compared to the general population: meeting a diagnostic criteria includes having some persistent behavioral anomalies. Having some of the same persistent behavioral anomalies does not qualify one for the diagnosis.
True. We have the DSM-IV for a reason, and too often, it seems that people do not understand that there are hard criteria for making a diagnosis of any mental disorder. But:
Very few of any who actually earn the diagnosis are capable of anything productive.
Um... how so? I don't know how many people are diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome or high-functioning autism, but I don't know of a reason that such people cannot be gainfully and meaningfully employed. (My bias here is that I have been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome. I doubt most people around me know, even though it isn't a gigantic secret.) Further, I see nothing in the DSM-IV criteria for Asperger's Syndrome that would automatically preclude productivity. Of course, it is entirely possible that the criteria themselves are not a satisfactory definition of the disorder, but at least in my case, I have had little trouble finding work in one of my two favored career lines at any given time.
And if one were to go with the behavioral criteria, the vast majority would earn themselves a far less appealing diagnosis or three, and which point they'd rebel against the process and disclaim any association with any disorder.
I asked why, and was told that I would be arrested if I did not vacate the street. I asked what law I was breaking, at which point a cop asked what he could say or do to get me out of the street. My response: "you can tell me what law I'm breaking." HIs response: "okay, you're under arrest." Again, what was I doing that constitutes predation or force?
Just out of curiosity: upon arresting you, did you then find out what law you were allegedly breaking? Because, you know, aren't they supposed to tell you why you are under arrest? From the demeanor you described, I'm guessing you were told nothing of the sort, but again, I'm just curious.
Parent's comment, while appearing funny, has more than a grain of truth.
I have been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, and while it certainly comes with some challenges, I wouldn't change the fact that I have it. I wouldn't want to give up the quirks and abilities that have been a part of me my whole life. A quote seems appropriate here:
"Not everyone on the autism spectrum wants to be cured." -- Sigourney Weaver
(Note: I have nothing to do with the linked blog.)
There is some correlation between child abuse and Borderline Personality Disorder, which can have some similarities in outward symptoms to autism spectrum disorders. Could that be what you are seeing? Perhaps not, but it might be worth considering.
First off, if you want to get rid of the stupid membership fee structure of Yahoo! et al., try Plenty of Fish. I met my girlfriend on there.
Second, it is fairly trivial to work around your correspondent not being a member of Yahoo! Personals so long as you are. What I did was put up a web page with a captcha-ish image of my e-mail address and give them the link. Maybe they've closed that loophole by now, but just as with DRM, people will keep finding ways to break the system.
One site that has made it easier to get responses (because someone has to look at your profile and at least click reject if they don't like it) is chemistry.com. However, it's rather expensive, and you can run into the same problem where if your correspondent is not a member, you cannot communicate.
I agree, though, that it is depressing how many more messages the ladies get than the guys (or at least this guy).
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not a lawyer either, but my understanding is that EPIC would have to appeal (to the relevant Court of Appeals -- I'm not sure what that is officially called for the D.C. Circuit) and lose before they could make a petition for certiorari, which is a petition to persuade the Supreme Court to hear their case. EPIC can't even appeal because they missed the deadline for doing so. That means they don't get to appeal to the Supreme Court either.
Maybe, but that has nothing to do with this case.
SCOTUS has already decided that the reason for which the trial court upheld the denial of EPIC's FOIA request is no longer valid. Unfortunately, the ruling did not come in time to help EPIC, whose attorneys apparently knew about the case before the Supreme Court but did not appeal EPIC's case in the allowed time for appeal.
See the linked decision.
Read the opinion linked from the summary. The basis of the ruling denying the motion for reconsideration was that it was untimely and filed after the deadline for appeal. EPIC had options to delay the ruling in their case pending the outcome of Milner v. Department of the Navy in the Supreme Court, and apparently, the attorneys for EPIC knew about that case. So, the underlying reason that EPIC lost initially was overturned by the Supreme Court, but because EPIC did not appeal within sixty days, they have no further relief. The relevant appellate court would dismiss the appeal as untimely, so it would never get to a petition for certiorari.
For example, if someone promised to give me a penny for every breath they took, even if I don't own their air, I should still be able to collect on that (of course it's again murky if I had previously convinced them I owned the air, or I would poison it if they didn't pay, ...). Probably the most common version of this sort of agreement that I run across is when some kid comes up to me and asks for $0.25 to go toward cancer research fundraiser personnel for every lap he walks on the high school track.
I am not a lawyer, but one characteristic of a valid contract is consideration. Each party to a contract must incur a legal detriment of some kind -- that is, each kind needs to give up something of value, and each party needs to receive something of value. I don't know that either example you give constitutes a valid contract because neither has consideration. Also, the first agreement was probably made by someone not of sound mind, and the second was made by a minor.
Pedantic enough yet?
As it applies to patents, though, if party A licenses a patent from party B, and the patent is later found to be invalid, and somehow no lawyer on either side thought to include any language on this situation (which means the parties should really find better lawyers), my guess is that the contract would be invalid due to lack of consideration. Of course, that's only a guess. If there are ongoing licensing fees, though, I would imagine party B would have a tough time collecting on any future fees.
Any lawyers are encouraged to correct what I have said here, as it is probably dangerously misinformative in some way.
I'd think it would be a little bit of a stretch from there to Eamon, but I get the point. Eamon is still around, by the way. Pretty fun stuff at the time.
Your post advocates a
( ) technical ( ) legislative (X) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
(To finish the form, I would need to know what economic solution you are proposing.)
Well, as TFA mentions, AffirmTrust apparently does this now, "coincidentally" starting on the day of the breach.
Another commenter mentioned CACert, which is great except that I don't want my users to have to install a certificate or bypass a warning to use my site.
It's always Speed and Cost where I am. I wish it was ever quality.
If they're cases arising from the same allegations, and the original cases were dismissed with prejudice, any competent lawyer should be able to get the suits dismissed due to the doctrine of res judicata . That's much simpler than trying to make any other arguments as to standing, etc.
If the cases are dismissed without prejudice, then of course they can be refiled elsewhere, since there was no final judgment on the cases.
I am not a lawyer, etc.
Well, Robert Half was on the list of companies using Epsilon. Some IT consultants might be an adequate target audience...
The only way you'll be safe under this regime is to require everyone in the supply chain uses FOSS.
Unfortunately, this could, and likely would, go the other way. Having valid Microsoft licenses would likely become a standard contract term for doing business with certain large companies, so the overseas company likely would have to use MS products even if they otherwise would have just avoided them and used FOSS in compliance with the relevant license terms.
It depends on the court, but Hennepin County at least is a little messed up. I live in Dakota County but have had no contact with its court system. I wish for the sake of the defendant in the present case that he'd been able to keep the original judge in the case, John Q. McShane. I've appeared before him in a civil case where I was pro se, and while I do not completely agree with all his rulings in the case, I can say he seemed like a good, fair, and predictable judge to me. I don't think he would have let some of this nonsense go on. I know he had no problem putting opposing counsel in his place when he started making stupid arguments.
Conciliation court in Hennepin County, on the other hand, is a completely unaccountable kangaroo court, but that has nothing to do with the subject of the article.
It's Minnesota, and 5/6 of the jurors in a civil case must agree. They probably ended up with a seven-member jury because, in Minnesota, if there are alternate jurors, and all the jurors watch the whole trial, all the jurors participate in deliberations. So, a six-member jury plus an alternate is probably what happened here.
I don't know where courts get off sending things like this out.
From reading the document, it appears to have been a proposed order submitted by plaintiff's counsel. This is typical in motion practice. To save time, the Court can just use it.
IANAL, etc.
So now companies just have to put in minimal protection and the rest is legal protection?
Yes, it's been that way since 1998. See this and, more generally, this.
Or, Yahoo did. Besides being listed as a sponsor on the NASA TV page, if one looks at the Windows Media link (for instance) and examines the ASX file, one notes a reference to "http://playlist.yahoo.com/makeplaylist.dll?id=1369080&segment=149773". See for yourself (probably using wget).
In skimming through the decision, I noticed that the legislative history of Chapter 149 (the relevant law being overturned in this instance) was discussed. It really looks like Chapter 149 was bought and paid for by the defendant in the case; yet, I did not notice any discussion of that matter. Perhaps someone who read the decision, or its concurrences, more thoroughly could comment. This type of legislative issue tends to be of interest to Slashdot readers, judging by some of their comments.
First day of a new job (not my current one, thankfully)... Systems guy is setting up my workstation and tells me that they use Notes there. I quote: "If you like Outlook, you'll love Lotus Notes!" Yes, really. My initial thought was, if I despise Outlook, does that mean I'll really loathe Notes?
Actually, I did like it better than Outlook 2003, but that's not saying much. Outlook 2007 (current job's mandated mail client) beats Notes to a bloody pulp, and I still dislike it quite a lot.
OK, I need to know where this church is. It sounds like it just might be the church for me...
Understand this about autism/Aspergers and pretty much any state considered disordered as compared to the general population: meeting a diagnostic criteria includes having some persistent behavioral anomalies. Having some of the same persistent behavioral anomalies does not qualify one for the diagnosis.
True. We have the DSM-IV for a reason, and too often, it seems that people do not understand that there are hard criteria for making a diagnosis of any mental disorder. But:
Very few of any who actually earn the diagnosis are capable of anything productive.
Um... how so? I don't know how many people are diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome or high-functioning autism, but I don't know of a reason that such people cannot be gainfully and meaningfully employed. (My bias here is that I have been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome. I doubt most people around me know, even though it isn't a gigantic secret.) Further, I see nothing in the DSM-IV criteria for Asperger's Syndrome that would automatically preclude productivity. Of course, it is entirely possible that the criteria themselves are not a satisfactory definition of the disorder, but at least in my case, I have had little trouble finding work in one of my two favored career lines at any given time.
And if one were to go with the behavioral criteria, the vast majority would earn themselves a far less appealing diagnosis or three, and which point they'd rebel against the process and disclaim any association with any disorder.
Please substantiate.
Just out of curiosity: upon arresting you, did you then find out what law you were allegedly breaking? Because, you know, aren't they supposed to tell you why you are under arrest? From the demeanor you described, I'm guessing you were told nothing of the sort, but again, I'm just curious.
Parent's comment, while appearing funny, has more than a grain of truth.
I have been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, and while it certainly comes with some challenges, I wouldn't change the fact that I have it. I wouldn't want to give up the quirks and abilities that have been a part of me my whole life. A quote seems appropriate here:
"Not everyone on the autism spectrum wants to be cured." -- Sigourney Weaver
(Note: I have nothing to do with the linked blog.)
There is some correlation between child abuse and Borderline Personality Disorder, which can have some similarities in outward symptoms to autism spectrum disorders. Could that be what you are seeing? Perhaps not, but it might be worth considering.
Yep, it's true.
(Sorry about the popups...)
First off, if you want to get rid of the stupid membership fee structure of Yahoo! et al., try Plenty of Fish. I met my girlfriend on there.
Second, it is fairly trivial to work around your correspondent not being a member of Yahoo! Personals so long as you are. What I did was put up a web page with a captcha-ish image of my e-mail address and give them the link. Maybe they've closed that loophole by now, but just as with DRM, people will keep finding ways to break the system.
One site that has made it easier to get responses (because someone has to look at your profile and at least click reject if they don't like it) is chemistry.com. However, it's rather expensive, and you can run into the same problem where if your correspondent is not a member, you cannot communicate.
I agree, though, that it is depressing how many more messages the ladies get than the guys (or at least this guy).