2) It is appropriate to sue for fake, defamatory reviews. I only wish it was legal to sue for fake promotional reviews. That it basically just business as usual.
3)They are suing for the full amount 8 times not because they want to get paid x8, but because they are concerned that they might only be able to prove one review is fake. I fully expect that once the identities are revealed, the law suits will be consolidated from 8 to fewer, probably only 1. This way if they prove even a single issue they will get fully paid.
Worse, the vaporware they are talking about doesn't even have anything new - it's just talking about design elements and style - that a company MIGHT return to.
Hey, can I write an article about a theoretically possible new car that has an expresso machine built into the engine, using it for heat?
How about my pipe dream of a house where all the furniture is built into the walls?
Or maybe I'm simply the first one to ever think of it. Man I'm smart!
If the cops think you are planning something and also think they know about it more than 1 year in advance, they should arrest you in that year. If they can't prove anything after that 1 year, then most likely they never had anything real in the first place - or are so incompetent that having you find out about the subpoena wouldn't matter anyway.
Seriously can anyone think of ANY criminal action that the government finds out about, gets a subpoena, takes more than one year before they publicly move - and the criminal knowing about the subpoena would hurt in any way?
FIFA is a great example the corrupt people knew about the investigation and did nothing.
There are several competing concepts of law. The three judges in question are a believer in strict literal meaning of the words, rather than the intent.
This is not the WORST that America has ever had, it is a fairly common point of view exposed by conservatives. It is wrong, but not the worst.
The worst are the people that don't care about intent or literal meaning - those that just try to compromise and/or shift the law to what they want it to be.
>Prime examples of this include the horrendous Dred Scott decision that said blacks, free or slave were not citizens of the US and that Congress did not have the power to make them free or citizens. He based this on pretty much nothing.
I am totally in favor of Obamacare and am happy SCOTUS ruled this way, but I do believe this was one of the stronger anti-obamacare arguments.
P Basically, this is a clear victory for 'the intent of the law', as opposed to the 'strict meaning of the law' legal theory
But that is not sufficient reason to stop selling it to civilians. This is a country founded on the idea of Free Speech.
We believe that the best way to fight evil is to let evil speak so we can hear who is evil. Much better than outlawing their vile ideas and having to guess who secretly harbors them.
In other words, I want to be able to see what shmucks wear/use the flag so I know whom to avoid.
/ end joke
A penny saved is a penny to squander. -- Ambrose Bierce