micks56

There are additional protection schemes that can detect and correct bit errors. Those are probably also run during the decoding process. The problem is that you can only detect so many wrong bits in a given word, and beyond that no correction can be made. That is probably why the damaged disc half works.

And your speakers are playing an analog signal. Cable quality matters even more there.

"Digital" signals are analog signals, but the only difference is that they are restricted to being above or below some threshold. But around that threshold there is a gray area where you can't really tell whether your signal will be interpreted as 1 or 0.

I am not defending the need for high-end HDMI cables. But saying "It's digital so don't worry" is wrong.

There are reasons that "digital" cables use twisted pair. Wow, even some "digital" cable standards specify the number of twists per inch required for reliable operation. And wow, some cable standards even specify shielded cable is required. I wonder why.

Here is a fun exercise for those that think "digital" signals don't need engineering steps to protect signal integrity: build all of your cables (or PCBs for that matter) with straight signals and you will have an excellent time trying to debug why your communications don't work. Bonus fun for making the cable length 1/4 of your signal wavelength.

The filmjackets.com guy operates the forum because he likes film jackets. The owner and the members research who makes the jacket and where to get it. Sometimes the jacket is custom/semi-custom.

In that case one very active member of the forum operates his own business where he will contact a jacket manufacturer and organize group buys. The active forum member is able to buy the jackets at a discount and then re-sell to the forum members.

I bought my motorcycle jacket based on the forum. From the forum I knew who the manufacturer of the jacket I liked was. Me finding that out on my own would have been very difficult, if not impossible. Without that site I would not have the motorcycle jacket that I ABSOLUTELY wanted.

ps. I was only a lurker in the forum.

I tend to side with letting the courts do their job. Yes, legal shakedowns certainly occur. I am more worried about smaller companies being affected than large ones, though. But that worry comes from much less legal experience than you.

Is it too idealistic to think that Rule 11 limits the scope and frequency of legal shakedowns?

1. Safer alternative design is only recognized in a minority of US jurisdictions. Warning defects is a separate cause of action from design defects. The Apple warning w/r/t iPods is precisely written as it is because of warning defect laws across the country. Also, w/r/t warning defects, there is no duty to warn of open and obvious defects.

2. w/r/t class actions, damages aren't multiplied by products sold, but rather by injured plaintiffs. There are no surprise sources of liability. The causes of action are mechanical and slow moving.

3. Yes, you are correct w/r/t pleadings. But a pleading is only the first step in filing a lawsuit. Once that is filed, the facts and evidence starts getting passed around. Also see Fed R. Civ. P Rule 12(b)(6) (motion to dismiss) and Rule 56 (summary judgement). The parties vigorously fight between themselves to rid of the lawsuit versus keep it going. And both Defendants and Plaintiffs drag on lawsuits for various tactical reasons.

4. Look to the State Legislatures for the law updates, not the Courts. California has an "Unfair Competition Law" that gives expanded causes of actions, and was created by the Legislature, not the courts. Massachusetts has a similar statute (MGL 93A Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices). It is the legislatures moving to protect their citizens, not the Courts.

Yes, you have to prove cause and effect. Lawyers call it proximate cause and it is an essential element in most (perhaps all) causes of action.

w/r/t forum shopping, I guess. There are specific rules on where a suit may be filed. To move to another jurisdiction you need a plaintiff in that jurisdiction. The Apple case was in California because the plaintiff and Apple are in California.

I skipped over some other stuff but those are the big areas that caught my eye.

And yes, my viewpoint is shaped by being a person close to becoming a lawyer.

Apple didn't win this case because the Court thought personal responsibility should triumph. Apple won the case because the plaintiffs didn't plead sufficient facts, and therefore the Court dismissed the case.

A better plaintiff, that is one that has actually sustained an injury, could prevail against Apple. The plaintiffs in the case do not allege any personal harm. Secondly, a court in a different state may rule differently. This case applied California law only.

I will also add that the plaintiff only needs to enter the infringer's gross revenues of the entire company into evidence. It is up to the infringer to justify deductible expenses from non-infringing business in order to arrive at the profits gained from infringement.

Once again, this is assuming the US has jurisdiction.

All of this assumes that US jurisdiction applies.

A defendant could also assert insanity or diminished mental capacity as defenses. Today necessity can be a defense to murder in some jurisdictions and some facts. So it is not precluded per se as this decision says. I have no idea whether international law could be controlling here or what that international law is.

Of course all of this is semi-moot because US criminal law is dominated by statute, not common law.

To win via UDRP, the complainant has to prove: 1) the domain name is confusing, 2) there is no legitimate use of the domain name, and 3) bad faith in use.

UDRP is nice because it is administrative and lawyers typically aren't used. You just file paperwork.

However, with the Anti Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), bad faith is met by proving bad faith in registration, not in use. That is a much easier standard to prevail on.

ACPA is civil litigation. It has more teeth to it when you win and lose, so lawyers are recommended because you may lose your right to appeal if you don't do things correctly during trial.

Also, remember that trademarks only exist when used to identify goods in the stream of commerce. A person does not acquire a trademark simply by registering a domain name. Therefore, old-gregg may own the trademark if he was the first to use it to identify goods in the stream of commerce.

Side note: if your "squatter" is outside the US, you have to use UDRP because you can't get jurisdiction in VA for ACPA when the person isn't in the US.

I am interested in seeing how (if?) they implement that. A mark is more than words; It is also the colors and shapes that comprise the mark. I wonder how they will determine whether a mark is similar when someone picks a logo that looks like yours.

It doesn't seem like their claim of "Search all U.S. trademarks filed since 1870..." is correct. Trademarkia doesn't have the mark that I filed in August, but it is on the USPTO website.

There are potential tort liabilities. Each jurisdiction has its own rules of law for that. An understanding about "proximate causation" will put you on the path to assessing your own tort liability risk.

A study of contracts in your jurisdiction is needed to assess your contract liability risk.

Every jurisdiction has its on strict and products liability laws, so you need to learn those, too.

Further compounding your issue is what jurisdiction's rule of law applies? The facts and the lawyer's skills will determine how that plays out.

So the answer to your question is, "It depends."

For an introduction to the issues and the laws, read this law review article. Michael Froomkin, Cyberspace and Privacy: A New Legal Paradigm? The Death of Privacy?, 52 STAN. L. REV. 1461 (2000). http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/privacy-deathof....

This case deals with exceeding authorized access on a website: Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 302 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2002) http://www.internetlibrary.com/cases/lib_case32.cfm

My company buys millions of dollars of electric components per year. Our products go into potentially explosive locations, so our quality and certification standards are very high.

One requirement put on us by the certification bodies is that we maintain full traceability of parts. We need to know that the chip we bought is the exact same make and model as the one the certification body tested when they examined our product.

Now maintaining this paperwork is a nightmare. We buy dozens of critical components per board, many thousands of boards per year, and all from multiple suppliers. Further compounding the issue, we have multiple sub-contractors around the globe also purchasing components to place on boards for us. For ten years after we ship a product we need to be able to look up Fuse 1 on serial number XYZ123 and know the part came from the part manufacturer listed in the certification document.

I really wish that there was a part supplier that would maintain all of this paperwork for me, and all that I had to do 10 years from now was match up my customer sales order with POs made to get the parts in house. I log into your site, type in my real old PO number, and then BAM, my traceability data shows up, RoHS compliance data shows up, SVHC conformity data shows up, etc.

Extra bonus if I can upload my BOMs to your site and just place POs for top level assemblies, and your servers handle ordering the parts online or sending automated emails/faxes on my behalf with my company letterheard to the parts suppliers.

This is probably way out there to what your business model is. Half of this is venting on my part as I struggle to deal with this major supply chain issue. Someone should start this business. I should start this business.

Registration gets you two things: 1. The scope of your mark applies beyond your geographical area. 2. Registration on principal register is constructive notice to the nation. It creates nationwide coverage and removes defenses of good faith and lack of knowledge.

If "Programming Praxis" is not registered, then Daily WTF can asset good faith and lack of knowledge defenses. I don't think that the geographical limitation issue has much weight on the internet. Those would be the only differences.

Registration also puts a nice, convenient stake in the ground of who was there first. I don't think that will be an issue here.

For mechanics or other non-insurance work, they can charge what they want, but their prices always end up below retail. If there is markup, it isn't much. It costs me less money to pay someone to change my oil than it would if I bought the oil and filter myself.

A busy mechanic will give higher quotes because he doesn't need your business. His worker utilization is high, and that is what drives his profits. Markup on parts is small, if not zero. Taking on the extra work means he has to bring a guy in on Saturday, usually his best and highest paid one, and pay overtime.

Now the idle mechanic knows the market rate and will quote that or lower, based on how much he needs the work. But there is a reason that he is idle.

You probably are paying for the document itself. Suing a lawyer for malpractice is difficult (high standard to prove and with the American legal system, you pay your own lawyer fees to bring/defend a case).

It looks like my second prediction was wrong. I said that Boeing would release a statement in 3 weeks with a delay of 6 months. It took Boeing 5 weeks to issue the statement, and the delay is TBD, but sounds like 10 months. At least I got the multiplier right (maybe).

Prediction 1 (there will be more delays besides this one) is still TBD. So is Prediction 3 (first non-test delivery to a customer in Fall 2011) is also TBD. Let it ride. I will keep my money on those.

You are right. Bundling the browser did not make Microsoft monopolistic. What the court did find was that Microsoft had a monopoly on the OS market and then used that monopoly to restrain competition in other areas, such as web browsers. That is where MS got in trouble.

The 1st Amendment doesn't grant me the right to write what I want on this forum, even if it would fit in the free-speech classification. Paul Graham can take down whatever he wants, whenever he wants. If Paul Graham became governor of California, he couldn't pass a statute that banned talking about Twitter and TC in online forums. That would run afoul of the 1st Amendment.

I am not sure that I understand your question on how Twitter could go after TC. How would anyone go after another entity without Federal or State law? I doubt there is a local ordinance about this wherever those two companies are located, and I doubt International Law would apply.

If Twitter wanted some sort of non-legal recourse, they could 1) talk it out with TC, 2) reach an out of court settlement, or 3) start the first SMS-organized boycott of a web site.

I admit that I have zero knowledge of journalism practices. But my legal knowledge is much greater; I am just over one semester away from graduating from law school.

I am neutral on Twitter. They are a company that I neither like nor dislike and I do not use their product.

2. This isn't my standard. It is the standard that courts across the country use. The majority of states (including California) adopted a less stringent version call the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Only 4 states, including my Massachusetts, whose version you see above, haven't adopted the act and instead employee their own versions.

3. Tobacco cancer data might be distinguished. First, it is a stretch to find that it has competitive value. Therefore it would not be classified under trade secret. Second, it probably isn't even covered under copyright because facts are not copyrightable, no matter how much effort was undertook to find them.

But I don't really know the facts of the leaked cancer data. I would have to read them in order to determine whether it was legal for it to be leaked to the press.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

There is nothing in there that says companies (ex. TechCrunch) have a right to print whatever they want, whether by free speech or by free press. It only says the government cannot pass a law that prevents the printing of free speech.

1. Not generally known or ascertainable by legal methods (TechCrunch violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to get the info.)

2. Must provide competitive value (Strategy plans provide competitive value)

3. Must be subject to reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy (the password, while weak, probably does constitute a reasonable effort)

edit: I see that you edited your post to include the New York Times case. The facts of that case are different than the one with TechCrunch. In NYT, the Federal Government tried to abridge the freedom of press. That triggered the 1st Amendment protections. Here, with TechCrunch, neither the Federal Government or any State Government are trying to prevent TC from printing the information. Therefore, the 1st Amendment does not apply.

Publishing these materials are not protected in any way by the First Amendment.

In any event, recording when a third-party battery is used does not shield a manufacturer from liability. In fact, it will be excellent evidence for the Plaintiff that the manufacturer knew of the design defect, and failed to correct it. Furthermore, the manufacturer failed to adequately warn the consumer. Two counts lost by Panasonic.