|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 19 2012 @ 03:15 PM EDT |
Could Christopher Armstrong go after the state of Michigan for the award since
Andrew Shirvell was a state employee at the time?
Or would Armstrong first have to prove that Shirvell was on state business when
he made the remarks and posts?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 19 2012 @ 10:54 PM EDT |
From the article: private justice with Hollywood money, I'm
still not clear on what this poor fellow did wrong. Wikipedia has an
article on private prosecutions.
I can't quite see how a legal activity done
in the absence of a co-conspirator becomes fraud. I mean, if an unlicensed
trade does electrical wiring on people's houses, I'm not sure how that
constitutes a fraud against legal electricians. The interpretation of the law
seems a bit of a stretch.
This should be a good case on appeal. However, I'm
not sure this poor guy can afford the type of legal representation required to
compete against the **AA. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 20 2012 @ 01:14 PM EDT |
http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/18/oracle-makes-more-moves-to-kill-open-source-mys
ql/
"Oracle is holding back test cases in the latest release of MySQL. It’s a
move that has all the markings of the company’s continued efforts to further
close up the open source software and alienate the MySQL developer community.
The issue stems back to a recent discovery that the latest MySQL release has bug
fixes but without a single one having any test cases associated with it. That
creates all sorts of problems for developers who have no assurance that the
problem is actually fixed."
Don't tell us you were surprised.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 20 2012 @ 02:39 PM EDT |
Or so the verge is reporting. Does anyone have anything
on this yet?
There seem to be few details, but it seems he wasn't
happy with their filing.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 20 2012 @ 03:13 PM EDT |
The is a story at http://www.slashdot.org
(http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/08/20/1535254/dea-lack-of-data-storage-results
-in-dismissed-drug-case)
where a clueless U.S. attorney wants to dismiss a case of a man indicted in 2007
on charges of illegally selling prescription drugs.
The reason? The case has now amassed a staggering 2TB data, which allegedly make
up 5 % of the DEA's world-wide electronic storage capacity.
2TB is 5 %? Then 20 cheap harddisks of 2 TB at less than $100 a piece would be
less than $2,000 in total. For good SSD harddrives a lot more, but still within
reach for DEA, at least for major case like that.
Very strange. I hope I missed something here.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 20 2012 @ 03:59 PM EDT |
The 1756 edition of Burn’s Justice of the Peace, the standard guide
for English magistrates, cites authorities back to the Institutes of Justinian
to the effect that “a woman can not conceive unless she doth consent.” It does,
however, go on to point out that as matter of law, if not of biology, this
doctrine is dubious.
Another writer argued that pregnancy ought to be taken
as proof of acquiescence since the fear, terror, and aversion that accompany a
true rape would prevent an [redacted] from occurring and thus make conception
unlikely.
Cory
Doctorow, Boing Boing[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 20 2012 @ 04:13 PM EDT |
Congress
Takes Aim at 'Patent Trolls' With
SHIELD Act
Well that is a step.
Can we suggest more?
I don't know if it is possible legally, but if it is
I would
suggest that every deal that mentions patents, protection against
patents, licenses for patents should become renegotiable every
time a patent
is found invalid that was owned by one of the
parties. Whatever the deal
says.
The party owning that patent would have to readopt the past, I
mean pay back the negotiated amount unless it really can prove to
have
properly calculated the risk that prior art would exist and
have acted
accordingly. (Like organised better searches, adapt
licence prizes, etc.) You
have to do something if you want to
pose as an inventor or his
replacement.
Search for prior art by a party requested to pay for a
patent
license should be payed back if it is successful or if, as a
result, it
can be shown that the search for prior art by the
patent owning company was not
properly done, like obvious places
where not checked.
Perhaps we should
think at some kind of class action about the
validity of the patent, in one
place, where every potential
accused party can join limiting legal costs and
legal time. The
patent holder
should submit a list of every company it is
looking at. (And
losses the possibility to sue the companies not mentioned in
the
list unless it can show it could not have known of possible
infringement.)
And a fast procedure in first instance over
possible infringement, once the
patent is declared valid.
I think this would stop the described troll
behavior. This
without trowing out the software patent idea, what I would
prefer, but only punishing bad behavior of the patent owning
company, as it
was found by the congressmen. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 20 2012 @ 06:08 PM EDT |
Judge
Alsup: Google didn't comply with blogger
disclosure order in
Oracle trial. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|