Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re: Huh? (Score 1) 68

Yeah, but it's possible that all the reasoning that goes into that judgment could result in some juicy judicial quotes. Given all the prior art pointed out by the EFF, the characterization of the patent as "stupid" is eminently reasonable, and doesn't even rise to the level of hyperbole.

Comment Re:Huh? (Score 1) 68

The EFF is making a serious blunder in saying nayh nyah Australian law does not apply in the US because that would cripple legal process between Australia and the US in both directions.

Actually, no. The EFF is doing just fine. They reason they don't give a shit about what some court rules on the other side of the world is that they don't have a legal reason to give a shit.

Comment Re:Huh? (Score 1) 68

Well, yeah, of course -- when you travel to Outer Slobberistan, US rules don't apply.

But enforcement in the US was the bulk of the nit that was being picked.

The EFF is an organization that is focused on American laws. Australia has its own EFA.

I suppose that, if they want to be overcautious, any EFF staffers traveling to Australia on EFF business should insure they are taking personal laptops rather than organization-owned ones, but it's really difficult to imagine any enforcement of this particular default verdict would actually occur inside Australia.

Comment Re:Huh? (Score 1) 68

and contempt of court rulings aren't covered by the SPEECH act even if the contempt is based on an original case which is, so any fines issued under contempt of court *can* be pursued in US courts against its US assets.

Bzzzt!!!

We have a loser. Contempt doesn't work that way in Australia, and even if it did, a US court wouldn't separate costs, fees, or fines from the underlying judgment.

Comment Re:Who will care? (Score 1) 547

Yes, absolutely, I said I was OK with that. But remind me where? I don't remember.

People like you frothing at the mouth and putting words in other peoples' mouths are unlikely to convince anybody of anything, same as those who you notice are frothing at the mouth on the other side.

Comment Re:Who will care? (Score 3, Interesting) 547

You have appeared to completely miss my point. I was responding to the facile reasoning behind "facebook already does this, so who cares if your ISP does it as well."

Whether Facebook, with 2.8 billion users, should be somehow regulated is a different question than whether the ISP should be able to listen in on my internet traffic.

They don't (didn't?) let the phone company listen in; why is the ISP different?

Slashdot Top Deals

A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on. -- Samuel Goldwyn

Working...