I would agree with you if it is shown Lyft is pulling the same shenanigans, but I've seen not one bit of such evidence. Never forget that it is possible for only one side to be wrong in a dispute. If you punch me in the face, I am not equally to blame as you.

This goes beyond "being a dick." It is systemic creation of contracts that are intended to be broken and cause Lync financial loss in order to help Uber's business. I don't see how that's not actionable.

So as a consumer, why do I care?

1) Because hopefully you're a moral being and recognize that this is immoral, wrong behavior on Uber's part.

2) Because in the long run this is going to cost you money. If Uber runs Lyft out of business, you can be sure Uber will be able to raise its prices. Further, even if they don't, this is raising Lyft's costs and they will pass those on to you. Or Lyft won't have a taxi available when you need one because it was on another Uber-induced wild goose chase.

But I really hope #1 is the main reason you'd object. I'm sorry if #2 is.

Agreed that it's not in the summary, but as you correctly note, it's just a "summary". Anyone who reads the underlying blog post will read this among the facts on which the court based its opinion: "The public was allowed to search by keyword. The search results showed only the page numbers for the search term and the number of times it appeared; none of the text was visible."

So those readers who RTFA will be in the know.

Don't I wish.

A cynic might argue that the key difference in this case was that, for a change, the ISP's, and not merely defendants, were challenging the subpoenas; but of course we all know that justice is 'blind'.

An ingrate might bemoan the Court's failure to address the key underlying fallacy in the "John Doe" cases, that because someone pays the bill for an internet account that automatically makes them a copyright infringer; but who's complaining over that slight omission?

A malcontent like myself might be a little unhappy that it took the courts ten (10) years to finally come to grips with the personal jurisdiction issue, which would have been obvious to 9 out of 10 second year law students from the get go, and I personally have been pointing it out and writing about it since 2005; but at least they finally did get there.

And a philosopher might wonder how much suffering might have been spared had the courts followed the law back in 2004 when the John Doe madness started; but of course I'm a lawyer, not a philosopher. :)

Bottom line, though: this is a good thing, a very good thing. Ten (10) years late in coming, but good nonetheless. - R.B. )

It's called Reddit.

• Fraud would be charging without notice, and without offering an opt-out.

Sorry, wrong. Fraud is intentionally charging someone for something they did not order. This falls right into that category. OP is under no obligation to read his email to prevent being charged thousands for an item he did not want.

I once got asked a question which I found hurtful and offensive, and felt tempted to 'blow up' the interview at that point. Fortunately, I resisted the temptation. As it turns out, the question was his way of introducing the next thing, which was telling me that he was offering me the job.

You think this matters? We should have real concerns. In late October Resers had a listeria recall on a lot of products produced at one assembly plant for lots of sub-companies. There has been no followup in the news (post november) detailing any further testing by them or the FDA. That original recall was initiated due to testing done in Canada. Should there be any consumer confidence by the American public that we can trust a factory like this to produce safe food? Look at their recall window on those products, it has been expanded now and includes 2014 products. How often do they test!? Why are they still shipping this food if its being recalled? This problem was first exposed in October. How often do they do a thorough cleaning!? I have tried to followup and have not been told of _any_ routine testing done on American soil by either the FDA or the company in question. The Reser consumer rep literally told me consumers do not care about their quality practices and that she did not have any information for me on how often they test for this. I have tried to find out more and all I have to go on is public information in the news. All consumers have are gems like this and more questions:

Here's my report on the actual ruling which is being reviewed: 2nd Circuit affirms denial of plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion in WNET v Aereo

I guess it would take a litigator to notice this, but it's quite unusual that a preliminary injunction denial would be getting this kind of appellate attention.

In the first place, it was unusual for an interlocutory appeal to be granted from the denial of the preliminary injunction motion. In federal court usually you can only appeal from a final judgment.

Similarly, apart from the fact that it's always rare for a certiorari petition to be granted, it's especially tough where the appeal is not from a final judgment, but just from a preliminary injunction denial which does not dispose of the whole case.

Kind of like the research they do with whales?