Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: A billion dollars pissed away . . . (Score 2) 437

by jhylkema (#34894810) Attached to: US Scraps Virtual Fence Along Mexican Border

to the military-industrial complex. How many of the 60 million or so uninsured Americans could have been provided with coverage for that money? I'm going to guess pretty close to all of them several times over. And this is just one program. If you'd have just let the Bush tax cuts for the extraordinarily wealthy expire, then you'd be in even better shape.

Personally, I gave up on America long ago. The country is a writeoff at this point, there's nothing left worth saving.

Comment: Re:A Simple Solution (Score 1) 54

by jhylkema (#34541126) Attached to: Interval's Patent Suit Against the World Dismissed

I still maintain that in addition to the dismissal of such a frivolous case should be the removal of one finger of all those who brought it. That would send the right kind of message.

Except that we don't know if it's a frivolous case yet. Why not? Because the complaint didn't give the defendants fair notice of which of their products allegedly infringed the patents in question. I agree that it's probably a dogshit case, but statements like yours are just plain ignorant. If it truly is a frivolous (i.e., completely unfounded, baseless or fraudulent) lawsuit, then Brother Paul will end up having to pay the other side's attorney fees as well as possibly additional sanctions. Make no mistake about it, courts are very well-equipped to deal with truly frivolous cases.

Comment: Re:"Dictates of Twombly and Iqbal" (Score 1) 54

by jhylkema (#34540864) Attached to: Interval's Patent Suit Against the World Dismissed

It was deliberate... it caused the defendants to burn time and money.

Wrong.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a complaint is only required to have "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Prior to 2007, this had been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to mean that the complaint would only fail if, on its face, the pleader could prove no set of facts that would entitle him to relief.

In 2007, the Supreme Court tightened up these standards in the two cases Judge Pechman referenced in her ruling. Now, to comply with Rule 8, a pleader must allege enough specific facts in support of his claim so that relief is more than speculative. In other words, "Staples, you infringed my patent, you bastards!" no longer cuts the mustard.

Prior to 2007, though, the type of boilerplate pleading that Paul Allen's lawyers submitted was just fine. They continued to get away with it until, as now, someone decided to call them out on it. The suggestion probably came from a summer associate who mentioned, "argue Twombly and Iqbal" in passing to his boss.

Just doing my part to correct some of the rampant legal illiteracy on /.

Canada

Plastic Chemical BPA Declared Toxic In Canada 168

Posted by Soulskill
from the good-thing-it's-not-toxic-here dept.
Julie188 writes "The Canadian government has formally declared bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical widely used to create clear, hard plastics, as well as food can liners, to be a toxic substance. Does this mean that you'll be tackled by the Canadian Mounties if you stroll around with some bottled water? Not exactly. Being a toxic chemical doesn't mean you can't get a little love. The government will at first try and set limits on how much BPA can be released into the air or water by factories that use the compound."

Comment: Re:Naysayers be damned, a few more christmases (Score 1) 241

by jhylkema (#33791784) Attached to: 15-Year-Old Boy Fitted With Robotic Heart

The boy is already dead, don't you get it? Sure, he's breathing, but he's almost certainly in diapers and is most likely being fed through a tube. If your idiotic religion says that preserving this kind of "life" will help you get closer to your nonexistent god through suffering, fine. This boy, however, is being tortured in the name of said idiotic religion and probably has no say in the matter. That is wrong and this doctor should have his licence pulled.

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Working...