Has the DOJ found their weak target to drag through court forcing them to give the DOJ a backdoor to set precedent? Cause you just know that if it doesn't get thrown out they are just going to offer a plea bargain to get their backdoor then use this case as a red flag to wave in front of everyone else.
Nope. They go about it backwards. Write it, pass it, then pray it doesn't harm anyone in a manner that is unconstitutional and hope they have enough money to take it all the way to the SCOTUS.
To me, Twitter's argument that a company that isn't competing in the same market would cause confusion over marks just means the original mark has become generic and the trademark should be removed.
I think a simple variation on Sparta's reply to Philip of Macedon would be very appropriate. "No" written on the backside of the letter and returned to the esteemed politicians.
Sounds like they accomplished their goal. They delayed getting the laws passed and allowed the issue to cool off. I suspect it will be much harder for any groups to get any right to repair laws passed without the raised passions of it being a "New" issue.
And this is exactly why i think SCOTUS should review a law directly after it gets signed instead of waiting around for the possibility of someone being harmed by it and it making its way through years of court battles and expenses to get to them. An ounce of prevention and all that.
The two videos released by the department show that Jones didn't exit her Tallahassee home until about 23 minutes after officers first rang the doorbell, and 15 minutes after they first announced themselves as police.
Why did it take them 8 minutes to identify themselves?
Which is going to be really amusing when they then get hit with the banhammer first time they try it and Twitter responds with, "not going to let you say this shit and us get sued for it."
The difference between the Holmes settlement and a prenup divorce settlement.. is that the Holmes settlement possible touches on the a matter of importance for the public. Namely the public domain issue of the Holmes Estate claim of a "more emotionally mature Sherlock who likes dogs". For the divorce case there isn't much of interest to the public there.
Which won't happen until someone actually experiences getting their life wrung through the ringers. As opposed to you know, the courts actually taking the law after it has passed Congress and the President and giving their yay or nay on it. Nope, gotta wait till someone is harmed by it to determine if it is unconstitutional or not.
How in the world did that bit of evidence not get thrown out of court? That wasn't the kids phone, that was the parents phone that they allowed the kid to use because as a minor the kid couldn't sign the contract with the phone company.
And so the other two branches go running around like headless chickens doing close to whatever they want while the judges just sit back and go "its not my problem.. yet"
The "courts" do nothing without a formal complaint filed.
After two hundred years I would have figured the courts would have figured out that "giving a bad actor enough leeway to hang themselves with when we FINALLY decide to come down on them" isn't working so well.
Our government is supposed to be a three part system to keep one from overreaching but that doesn't work if one branch is passive and just sits around waiting for someone to complain. When the executive or legislative branch does something that they are expressly not allowed to do or is self evidently against the constitution, the courts need to exercise their power of judging the law and tell them to stop that shit.
So. The next question is, will a federal court call ICE in front of it and ask them why they are issuing "subpoenas" that are for all intents and purposes counterfeits?
(untitled comment)
Has the DOJ found their weak target to drag through court forcing them to give the DOJ a backdoor to set precedent? Cause you just know that if it doesn't get thrown out they are just going to offer a plea bargain to get their backdoor then use this case as a red flag to wave in front of everyone else.
(untitled comment)
I see what you did there..
(untitled comment)
The estate sure us doing a good job of helping Dr. Seuss manage his money to create new works for us to enjoy..
Oh wait.. he is dead, he doesn't have any incentive to create something new. Comixmix on the other hand..
Re: Re: Whaaa???
Nope. They go about it backwards. Write it, pass it, then pray it doesn't harm anyone in a manner that is unconstitutional and hope they have enough money to take it all the way to the SCOTUS.
(untitled comment)
I guess that means these two representatives wouldn't get paid either as I'm sure they have a public website.
(untitled comment)
To me, Twitter's argument that a company that isn't competing in the same market would cause confusion over marks just means the original mark has become generic and the trademark should be removed.
Re: So how does DMCA apply to contract disputes?
It applies because the publisher defeated the copyright measures on the developers version (the phone home to a server bit).
(untitled comment)
I think a simple variation on Sparta's reply to Philip of Macedon would be very appropriate. "No" written on the backside of the letter and returned to the esteemed politicians.
(untitled comment)
The records might be released.. if they still have them and haven't all or most of all of them been shredded.
(untitled comment)
Sounds like they accomplished their goal. They delayed getting the laws passed and allowed the issue to cool off. I suspect it will be much harder for any groups to get any right to repair laws passed without the raised passions of it being a "New" issue.
(untitled comment)
And this is exactly why i think SCOTUS should review a law directly after it gets signed instead of waiting around for the possibility of someone being harmed by it and it making its way through years of court battles and expenses to get to them. An ounce of prevention and all that.
(untitled comment)
The thing that really strikes me as odd is, this stance in Australia vs the deal they just brokered in France to pay the news companies for the link.
(untitled comment)
Why did it take them 8 minutes to identify themselves?
Re:
Which is going to be really amusing when they then get hit with the banhammer first time they try it and Twitter responds with, "not going to let you say this shit and us get sued for it."
Re: Re: Should confidential settlements be allowed?
The difference between the Holmes settlement and a prenup divorce settlement.. is that the Holmes settlement possible touches on the a matter of importance for the public. Namely the public domain issue of the Holmes Estate claim of a "more emotionally mature Sherlock who likes dogs". For the divorce case there isn't much of interest to the public there.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which won't happen until someone actually experiences getting their life wrung through the ringers. As opposed to you know, the courts actually taking the law after it has passed Congress and the President and giving their yay or nay on it. Nope, gotta wait till someone is harmed by it to determine if it is unconstitutional or not.
(untitled comment)
How in the world did that bit of evidence not get thrown out of court? That wasn't the kids phone, that was the parents phone that they allowed the kid to use because as a minor the kid couldn't sign the contract with the phone company.
Re: Re:
And so the other two branches go running around like headless chickens doing close to whatever they want while the judges just sit back and go "its not my problem.. yet"
Re: Re:
After two hundred years I would have figured the courts would have figured out that "giving a bad actor enough leeway to hang themselves with when we FINALLY decide to come down on them" isn't working so well.
Our government is supposed to be a three part system to keep one from overreaching but that doesn't work if one branch is passive and just sits around waiting for someone to complain. When the executive or legislative branch does something that they are expressly not allowed to do or is self evidently against the constitution, the courts need to exercise their power of judging the law and tell them to stop that shit.
(untitled comment)
So. The next question is, will a federal court call ICE in front of it and ask them why they are issuing "subpoenas" that are for all intents and purposes counterfeits?
More comments from Nathan F >>
Nathan F’s Submitted Stories.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt