And I forgot to login :)

That formatted marvelously

Title 35 is for Patents. Title 17 is for Copyright, and Chapter 5 is for infringement. Assuming, the ludicrous well its free calculation of damages would hold up in any court, which it would not, there is a statutory damages clause for just this reason. I will quote the statutory damages section for you just to shut this ridiculous line of log logic up 17 USC 5 (c) Statutory Damages (1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work. (2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200. The court shall remit statutory damages in any case where an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107, if the infringer was: (i) an employee or agent of a nonprofit educational institution, library, or archives acting within the scope of his or her employment who, or such institution, library, or archives itself, which infringed by reproducing the work in copies or phonorecords; or (ii) a public broadcasting entity which or a person who, as a regular part of the nonprofit activities of a public broadcasting entity (as defined in section 118 (f)) infringed by performing a published nondramatic literary work or by reproducing a transmission program embodying a performance of such a work. (3) (A) In a case of infringement, it shall be a rebuttable presumption that the infringement was committed willfully for purposes of determining relief if the violator, or a person acting in concert with the violator, knowingly provided or knowingly caused to be provided materially false contact information to a domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority in registering, maintaining, or renewing a domain name used in connection with the infringement. (B) Nothing in this paragraph limits what may be considered willful infringement under this subsection. (C) For purposes of this paragraph, the term “domain name” has the meaning given that term in section 45 of the Act entitled “An Act to provide for the registration and protection of trademarks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other purposes” approved July 5, 1946 (commonly referred to as the “Trademark Act of 1946”; 15 U.S.C. 1127). (d) Additional Damages in Certain Cases.— In any case in which the court finds that a defendant proprietor of an establishment who claims as a defense that its activities were exempt under section 110 (5) did not have reasonable grounds to believe that its use of a copyrighted work was exempt under such section, the plaintiff shall be entitled to, in addition to any award of damages under this section, an additional award of two times the amount of the license fee that the proprietor of the establishment concerned should have paid the plaintiff for such use during the preceding period of up to 3 years. These can be awarded per infringement (See RIAA garbage) ALSO I am a lawyer. joe

Person B, generally, has to have known or should have known that something Person A was going to do with Person B's things would be used for a crime or something bad. On another note, I think you are confusing negligent entrustment theory into a copyright case. Without having reviewed the relevant case law, I find that to be a bit far fetched. Having a duty to run a secured WiFi, is a big leap, since it is not a legal requirement. You don't have to lock your door, or your car. In many states "war driving" is illegal, so that makes it unlikely that the person is going to be held liable for the criminal action of another as the basis.

Poor Sully, Matrix told him he would kill him last, but he lied. Literally the most homo-erotic, comedic, and quintessential action movie ever made. It is the 80s action movie genre in one movie. All action movies are measured against this movie. Too bad this thread is off topic, but we need posts on /. regarding Commando instead of Diaspora.

Slight edit. 22 witnesses x 2 hours / 6 hours per day = 7.5 days of trial. That is only slightly less ridiculous. That would mean either delaying the trial for a long time to get a block available, or doing it piece meal with Apple and Samsung standing on-call. On-call trials rarely happen. With some of the additional information regarding the 4 hours left of actually blocked off time for Apple, it is still ridiculous.

Firstly, IAAL. Secondly, judges are people. There is no "one" appropriate judicial temperament. While, I think she has made one bad decision on exclusion of evidence during discovery, she has not acted any differently than many judges I have encountered during my practice. Some of them were good jurists, others were arbitrary and capricious. She does not seem to be arbitrary or capricious. Discovery is always a thorny process in the Federal system. There are some strict rules, and there is incentive to hide things as well. Now to the issue of the day. Let's pretend you were a judge, and you had just presided over a multi-day proceeding regarding the claims of these two litigants, only to hear that a litigant wants to call 75 witnesses, significantly more than they have called during the trial proper, in rebuttal. It is ludicrous. When one is scheduling a multi-day trial one, generally has to move significant other trials around. It delays proceedings for _Thousands_ of cases. When a party wants to call 75 witnesses, you have to estimate 1-2 hours per witness minimum. With about 6 real good hours of trial a day possible, that is 25 days of trial at the absolute minum. I think "are you smoking crack" is a proper measured response, considering that you have basically ruined your trial calendar for a year minimum to make up for that. If I were the presiding judge, I may have responded by saying, "You can put 75 on there but if even one is cumulative there will be sanctions: including attorney's fees, costs, etc. and a letter to your relevant State and Federal Bars." If I felt that the parties have been wasting the court's time, "Are you smoking crack?" would be the least of what they might hear, while I consider dismissing their claims by sua sponte summary judgment or JNOV.

Gleevac (Imatinib) makes Ph+ CML a manageable livable Chronic Disease, instead of dying very rapidly. While it is expensive and "life-prolonging," it is very life-prolonging. And there are other TKIs that can now be taken if there is drug-resistance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_and_development_of_Bcr-Abl_tyrosine_kinase_inhibitors Many of these drugs are in Phase II trials. The problem is that articles in Time about Imatinib or in TFA about a PNAS journal article, show the sensationalist nature of health and science reporting. But, you read slashdot so you already know that.

Wow that formatted terribly.

The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part andunconstitutional in part. The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.As for the Medicaid expansion, that portion of the Affordable Care Act violates the Constitution by threateningexisting Medicaid funding. Congress has no authority to order the States to regulate according to its instructions.Congress may offer the States grants and require the States to comply with accompanying conditions, but the States must have a genuine choice whether to accept the offer. The States are given no such choice in this case: They must either accept a basic change in the nature of Medicaid, or risk losing all Medicaid funding. The remedy for that constitutional violation is to preclude the Federal Government from imposing such a sanction. That remedydoes not require striking down other portions of the Affordable Care Act. If you need explanation, ask.

I had the same question. So instead of funding one project, they are now funding 2.5 projects? How is this any different than pet projects that distributed out NASA in the first place. I am amazed at how quickly the private sector could get these from concept, to testing/deployment. However, it is clear that the private sector is standing on the shoulders of giants. The fact that they could do this so quickly was because the information was publicly owned or at least easily available. I am curious as to if there will be an initial jump in creativity only to be hidden behind trade secret and patent(IP) wall. Ultimately, the cost really is the same as you say. It is the whole shell game. These are private companies ROI is not magical. At a certain point it will increase because it has to. Investors want dividends; they are not in it because space travel is cool. Eventually, you have to invent ways of generating revenue, and that means raising prices at a rate that is higher than inflation. There is no actual incentive to be under budget, and paying some lobbyists will insure that these companies will be paid. Perhaps I am being cynical, but privatization, in my experience, has generally not worked out in the long term if the goal is cost savings. In contract law, the concept of puffery always accompanies the sales pitch. The conversation that leads to the bargain that is not considered part of the contract, but may have affected the inducement. So you sell the public on the idea that the private sector is magically more efficient than a highly regulated government, but meanwhile in the terms of the contract you make sure that the government is the one holding the bag if assumptions were not correct, or there are "unexpected" over-runs. So the puffery is the "cost-savings," just like "this used car runs like a dream", but is sold "AS-IS" disclaiming all express or implied warranties.

Firstly, IAAL. While I agree this particular incident is not a big deal. Generally, in Constitutional criminal procedure cases this doesn't matter. Some of the best legal decisions have come from cases where the guy was guilty as sin. In fact, the majority of the decisions have, as normal citizenry have little recourse or time to deal with the fact that our rights have been violated. So, the problem is exactly that most people will not stand up to state interference into their daily lives.The collective we that is government will go to great lengths to keep ourselves safe, at the expense of ultimately endangering our safety in the long term. The slippery slope argument, which is proved likely by history, is that one can easily give the collective majority too much control over your individual liberty. Then everyone suffers as a police state emerges from relatively benign safety measures. Reasonable Suspicion has been watered down to basically mean an educated hunch, or a hunch++. You can have Reasonable Suspicion of a crime as a police officer based on your experience, the neighborhood (DWB), the smell of alcohol (which as we nerds all know is actually oder-less), etc. Reasonable Suspicion is a LOW hurdle. I too am curious about these monitors. What is their reliability? What is the standard that would make it reasonable for an officer to infer that a crime may be in progress? What is the normal radioactive signature of a motor vehicle? Does brand matter? What if it were sufficiently armored, or lead plated?

Yah, about that lawyer thing. I have a degree in CS. IAAL and got my degree from a decent Florida Law School. However, I just started medical school to get out of the legal field. Law is an odd field. There are many states where there are actually too many lawyers. You can make a respectable living as a lawyer, but it won't be doing the "cool" stuff you normally think of. If you are not in the top 10% of your law class, many of those "cool" jobs will not be even an option until you get 2-5 years of experience doing something horribly boring for very little pay. Also coming from an IT field you may undervalue yourself in the work that you do, I know I did. Also, whatever you do, don't do family law. Please I did, and it was what turned me off of the legal profession completely. That is my 2 cents.

Well it depends. If they were sworn under oath before speaking with the relevant ICE agents, then they very well may have committed perjury, or obstruction of justice. Filing a false affidavit or report is still a crime in many jurisdictions. If RIAA wrote it or said it, there could also be a defamation angle to it since we are speaking of a civil suit.

Ah the dormant 3rd. We will find some fun use for that amendment yet.