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. )

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.

I have made this exact comment before to one of my son's teachers. The entire philosophical foundation for her behavior and attitude was that her job would be amazing, if it wasn't for all those kids demanding her time and attention. She hated assigning homework because she had to grade it, she rarely ever sent work home to be reviewed or show us any sort of the curriculum they used. We had absolutely NO WAY of knowing what our child was doing in school except to ask him (then he was 11 years old) what they studied and what he did well on and what he was struggling with.

After two (very respectful) meetings with the teacher, I reported to her management that she seemed to think those kids were there merely to give her a job. It was disgusting.

Eventually she was let go (another year down the road). She isn't average in her blatant laziness, but I bet that attitude is more rampant than we know.

This is a truly epic demonstration of why people need to talk less and read/listen more.

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.

When a surgeon is first out of medical school, they will do dozens if not hundreds of surgeries under the direct supervision of an attending surgeon. If that med student starts to do something dangerous, the attending (who was there the whole time watching) will step in and help them out. Any time the master steps in the student learns something new, effectively making it better. This doesn't mean the attending will lose focus after a few minutes and start reading a paper or playing on his/her phone, it just means they aren't the one actively performing the surgery. If the student destroys someone's knee or kidney or bowel the attending is held responsible, but the student gets bad marks for causing the situation in the first place. It is an effective feedback system.

Brad

The demonstration was intended as proof-of-concept only; such use of car-mounted laser diodes is currently strictly forbidden by safety regulations worldwide.

That is a direct quote from the very short article.

Funny, I had the same reaction when I read it. He seemed like a salesman for Google or something.

Dear Prince Bernard, If you're talking about my bank account, you're barking up the wrong tree :)

Fair use cases are very fact specific. If you start monkeying with the facts, Judge Chin might not feel the same way about it.