Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. (Score 1) 404

Yeah -- An "Order to Seal" and an "Order to Close Proceedings" are two separate things --- although, in your defense, they are usually contained in one document....but to reiterate again........even if a trial is "completely open" or a county or municipality has an "open file policy" that doesn't mean that all the evidence and the black glove are sitting in a fucking file for everyone to go and see -- sorry, the law doesn't work that way -- nor does the Constitution. Releasing suppressed evidence may not be "illegal" in that the attorney won't go to jail -- but it flies in the face of the judicial system and he has ruined any respectable career prospects he has. Additionally, a lawyer not only fights for the rights of his or her client but also the integrity of the system WE ALL live under -- the Samsung lawyer obviously didn't get the memo in this case. At any rate, Samsung just fucked themselves because not only will Apple move for sanctions but also could potentially move for a mistrial and start all over.

Comment: Re:The judge;'s job isn't to get livid. (Score 1) 404

No - the judge's job is to ensure a FAIR and IMPARTIAL trial -- and releasing excluded evidence to the press completely undermines that. Jurors aren't allowed to talk about a trial outside the courtroom -- Samsung has an even higher duty to NOT discuss the case with the media, as does Apple. The attorney, if he did release the information, should be sanctioned not only for the leak but also for making the courtroom into a theater. Its hard as shit to get evidence excluded -- if it was, there was good reason for doing so. --Yeah--I'm a lawyer.

Comment: Re:Engineering Standards (Score 1) 419

No, this is what happens when fat legislators write technical documents....most of whom went to sub-par law school all across the country. Lawyers are the only ones who are going to fix this problem now....so don't hate us too much. I say the democrats should float a bill protecting the tax payers from paying for any potential damages and force any damage payments to be shunted to the developer\owner of the land....lets see how many companies are vying for space on the coast to develop.

Comment: Re:Revised TOS? (Score 1) 139

I second this -- besides that a EULA and TOS are not contracts to begin with. EULA = End User License Agreement and TOS = Terms of Service...these are not contracts. You are licensing the USE of the software...something that has been discussed on /. over and over again....the point is, a contract and a licensing agreement are not the same thing...and thus the legal rules governing them are different.

Comment: Re:Drop charges == pay? (Score 1) 298

by YesDinosaursDidExist (#39370713) Attached to: Canadian Charges Against US Manga Reader Dropped
I don't know how the Canadian court system works. But, Yes - in Britain if you lose a case -- you pay the winning party's legal fees. In the US - at a federal level attorney fees can be awarded in Civil Rights Cases under the: Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976. Additionally, in some civil cases you can request attorney fees be awarded to you...but that is usually only the case if the Court is also awarding punitive damages.

Comment: Re:Uh, no (Score 5, Informative) 897

by YesDinosaursDidExist (#39335715) Attached to: How To Crash the US Justice System: Demand a Trial

Thus the part that reads, "If you cannot afford..."

Why was this modded up to 4 - "Interesting?" I would look up the requirements (i.e. lack of income requirement) for access to the public defender system in your state. In Wisconsin for example --- if you make >$260\week you are not allowed a public defender and have to provide your own council. Let's see -- $260\week -- assuming you never take any vacation -- thats less than $14K a year. .......basically -- you have to be EXTREMELY poor before you are given access to a public defender...and its worse in some states.

Also - I agree that coercing defendants to settle does happen -- in criminal and civil cases -- but the dockets of courts around the country are already filled -- so sure, we can "break" the system -- but unless you're willing to fight for another century to rebuild the entire judiciary -- its pointless. The reality is, trials are expensive, they suck, depending on the jurisdiction -- you may already be screwed (so settlement is your BEST option), and most people don't have the wherewithal or resources to carry a case through to final judgment.

I have no idea what the answer is -- as I see it, there is no fix or magic bullet...but, demonizing settlement of cases, or plea bargains -- is not the answer. And nor is forcing a trial on someone who will most likely be indebted for the rest of their lives paying legal and court fees -- there is no justice in that -- and in many cases -- it is a worse fate than would have come out of settling.

Comment: 2 things (Score 3, Insightful) 694

by YesDinosaursDidExist (#37278598) Attached to: Solar Company Folds After $0.5B In Subsidies
First:A $535 Million loan guarantee is not the same as a subsidy....so.....maybe these articles need to be vetted a little better. Second: “Solyndra could not achieve full-scale operations rapidly enough to compete in the near term with the resources of larger foreign manufacturers,” - DUH!! And this will continue happening as long as the US is not China.... ....so instead....we should CREATE NEW TECHNOLOGY and license it for manufacture to other countries....welcome to International Business 101

Comment: Re:1 Hurdle Down, A Few More to Go (Score 1) 293

by YesDinosaursDidExist (#36016602) Attached to: An IP Address Does Not Point To a Person, Judge Rules
Its true - its a great ruling and a vital first step. But basing the ruling on someone piggybacking off of another persons router doesn't solve the main issue. What could be argued is that in fact (and we know its not true) an IP address does point to a person..but happened (because of open WIFI) to point to the WRONG person. What needs to be brought up is IP address leasing...and that a particular IP could belong to countless people over a pretty short period of time...only then will we put this issue to rest.

Comment: Re:It's not "forced" if you agree to it in a contr (Score 1) 415

by YesDinosaursDidExist (#35968246) Attached to: Supreme Court: AT&T Can Force Arbitration

Yeah ok - AT&T can do it and save millions of dollars (while screwing the customer)...so I guess all those other large companies in the US won't do the same thing because its "wrong" and money doesn't mean anything to them...they're not for profit right?!

Well if that's the case I;ll just take my money and invisible hand and go to another company......oh wait.....

.

....maybe my only option is not not have a phone, not have internet, not have TV....and just like never buy anything and just not do business with ANY large company that will of course change their policies to reflect the ruling? Sure...ok...you're right...its not forced...I'll just have no modern product or service that most people consider necessary to live...im better than them anyway.

Long computations which yield zero are probably all for naught.

Working...