Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:The damages weren't enough (Score 2) 80

It was a 'design patent'. Not something about technology or production, but rather about looks. Pretty much everyone I've ever talked to about that says the entire concept is total B.S.
Gee, bevels in glass so it doesn't have the sharp edges. Corners on rectangles to they don't poke you when in your pocket. Total obvious garbage.

Comment Re:Capitalism works, SLOWLY (Score 1) 372

For some stupid zero tolerance antidrug reason, the schools around here won't let students carry their required medicines. Instead, it has to be given to the office, who keeps it the whole school year, only letting it be retrieved for emergencies. (There are so many problems with that I'd like to see the idiot that come up with it get a nice allergic reaction to something and find out his meds are at least and extra 10 minutes away, and double his cost for them since he has to have a complete second set.)

Comment Re:You don't know what a free market is, do you? (Score 3, Interesting) 372

Among other conditions. A free market is essentially a utopian theory for economics, totally unrealistic despite it being desirable.
It also assumes there are no real barriers to market entry so anyone can decide to market something if they think they can do it better.
That is so far from reality, it's virtually insane.
Anyway, it's a neat idea, but it's not a viable one.

Comment Re:you mean capitalism works? (Score 1) 372

What free market? You sure aren't talking about ours, or else you don't know what a free market actually is. That's ok, the reporters and politicians are pretty ignorant about that, so nobody else can be yelled at too much for not knowing.

By the way, there was a great market for the stuff at it's old price pre 2007. These guys have found a way around the patents Mylan now holds, and so they are going for the gold by massively undercutting them using a fair market price, and at the same time score mega bonus points of public good will.

If it were truly a free market, Mylan wouldn't have been able to have prevente people from doing this years ago.

Comment Re:Leave. (Score 1) 427

I don't know about law in any of the US, but in the UK: a private letter is considered to be "published", for libel purposes, the moment it is opened (by someone other than the party being libelled, or someone acting as their agent and with their express permission to open it)

Yes. It is roughly the same in the U.S. See HERE, in the section headed "Publication".

Comment Re:Leave. (Score 1) 427

With the intent to cause damage. Look it up. They damaged party has to prove intent. Which is why there are almost never successful; libel or slander cases in the US.

This is not true. At least in most states, intent to harm is not required.

What IS usually required is to show that the accused knew, or reasonably should have known, that the statement was false.

That is not quite the same thing.

Comment Re:This. Libel need not be public, but must be unt (Score 1) 427

It's amazing to me how many people don't get the difference between stating an opinion and stating something as fact. I am thinking of a certain Slashdot frequenter who fits that profile.

There is a great deal of legal precedent in that regard. For example, calling someone "an ass" or similar is pretty definitely an opinion, even if it's stated as though it were fact: "You're an ass."

In college law classes there is a rather famous case study from, I think, the 17th century.

A guest at an inn told the innkeeper: "My horse can pisse better ale than you serve here."

The innkeeper sued the customer for slander. The judge ruled: "The accused did not slander the innkeeper. He complimented his horse."

So, while there are lines as to what is acceptable speech and what is not, it pays to be cognizant of where those lines are. And many people have no clue.

Comment Re:Leave. (Score 4, Informative) 427

This is quite incorrect. I would say dangerously incorrect. At least in most of the U.S.

In general, actionable defamation (of which libel and slander are particular examples) only requires that you express untrue, damaging things to someone other than the party you are referring to. There is NO specific requirement that it be public.

And "damage" is used loosely here. Damage could mean damage to their career, or damage to their public reputation, or even just damage to a single friend's opinion of them.

If you wrote untrue, damaging things in a document to your HR department, that could definitely be considered libel, and would likely be actionable. Specific cases vary, but again in general.

Of course, truth is (again in general... most U.S. states) an absolute defense. So if what you wrote is true and you can demonstrate that it is, by a preponderance of evidence, then you're probably safe. But you'd better have that evidence.

In addition, most corporations have as part of their employment conditions that you can't sue the company or other employees as a result of negative opinions expressed as part of "official" company communications, such as an employee review or exit interview.

Again in the U.S., that is simply not true. "Most" corporations do NOT have such a clause in their contract, and there is a very strong push to stop that practice in those states where it is still allowed. Because in some states such clauses are specifically prohibited by law, and the list of those states is growing.

Slashdot Top Deals

The absent ones are always at fault.

Working...