Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Following this to its logical conclusion
I'm pretty confused with your post. Let me see if I can summarize--if the driver interacts with something passively, its ok, but if the driver interacts with something actively (thus taking their eyes off the road) that is bad.
And therefore, if anything (like texting) can only be interacted with actively, it should induce liability?
If that is the argument, I'm sorry, but I think that's way too convoluted. It seems to me, that in any of the examples you cite the onus is still on the driver to DECIDE how to process whatever distraction is interrupting their driving. The fact that some things can be passive or active, or only active, or only passive is irrelevant to liability. DH said it above--it is the driver's specific action/decision that introduces the risk into the behavior, not the presentation (regardless of source) of a distraction.
Re: Re: Re: Following this to its logical conclusion
But you've missed the point--the issue isn't "texting", the issue is whether you present a distraction that takes the driver's attention away from the road. All of the examples I gave, COULD do that, but it all depends on the driver's response to my potential distraction.
Which brings me back to, why o why shouldn't the liability fall entirely on the driver who can choose to engage or ignore the distraction?
Well, from what I've read so far, that's the only reason that judge thought you might be liable, is if you know the person is driving and have a reasonable expectation that the person will check the message while they are driving.
The only way third-party liability in this case could make ANY sense is if the third-party is both knowledgeable of the risk (not just that it "could" be distracting, but that it "will" be distracting to that particular individual) and willfully ignores that risk. Meaning, they must know the specific driver and have seen that they text and drive on a regular basis.
Okay, so if we follow this to its logical conclusion, the following could also be held liable:
a) calling someone you know is driving
b) Radio stations
c) Sign spinners attempting to attract the attention of drivers
d) TALKING to the person driving the car
I don't see how, if we accept that texting can fit that category, that a passenger cannot. In either case, the driver has to make a conscious choice to be distracted based on input from the third-party. The passenger can say, "hey, look at that barn!" the driver looks and then crashes. Yet, we do not currently hold those passengers liable.
And the reason is because there is an intervening choice on the part of the driver—and to add liability to others reduces the driver's liability. This would be a bad precedent to set, because once it becomes possible to reduce a driver's liability in this manner, you can bet that lawyers for the drivers will pursue many, many other corollary avenues to reduce their clients' liability, such as the examples I gave.
Ugh. The aspect of this that bothers me the most is the fact that this potentially legitimizes the concept of "she looked old for her age." Which is just shameless victim-blaming. Given the context of this case, it should never have been said.
Ummm... wow. Where to start. Let's see, oh, look! There's evidence linked and embedded that actually supports the article content! You must have missed that, so we'll give you a pass.
I know you'll probably argue there's no difference, but for those with open minds and who are comfortable actually debating something, the reason there is no hypocrisy here is that when he accuses others of guilt-by-accusation, it is when those throwing accusations do so with ZERO supporting evidence. Ad-hominem and subjective assertion versus an evaluation of facts or analysis.
Ummm... you need to take your own advice. Common sense also dictates that if the need is great enough, Tel Co's will prioritize exactly the requests under discussion here so that they will not take such time.
...the importance of specific "dots" is also subjective. If investigators are looking through portions of your life, no matter how good a citizen or human being you are, they will find something they could decide is relevant when seen in the context of other "dots".
Meaning, the reason there are supposed to be a great deal of barriers to collecting "dots" is because the greater number of "dots" they have, the more likely they will find one that subjectively fits their analysis objectives, even if you have nothing to do with the type of crime or scheme they are looking for.
We are all human, we are all guilty of imperfection and that basic fact alone should demonstrate that data collection without a predicate scheme and probable cause is fundamentally wrong.
Is there really a market for paid-for fan fiction?
I gotta ask, is there really a market for paid-for fan fiction? I'm not really interested in fan-fiction myself, so maybe I just don't have the right perspective.
But my sense is that significant part of what makes it fun is the lack or restrictions and the ability to share it widely. So, I personally just don't see how there would be any market for paid-for fan-fiction, regardless of price. And if the originator thinks this will give them more control, they should think again. This isn't going to stop fans from writing fan-fiction and sharing it.
Ugh. You do realize that when you say, "You might consider reading up on this stuff..." that you come across as a) arrogant b) condescending, and c) foolish.
You should be bothered by c) the most because nothing you've offered actually refutes anything Mike said. All you've offered is your profound and hollow belief that you are more knowledgeable and therefore right. Blech--people like you really piss me off.
I've been reading this blog for years and perhaps it is you that needs to do some reading so that you'd realize that Mike has not only a deep understanding of this material, but he demonstrates it over and over again with both references and facts.
I realize that is a possible outcome but I was thinking that would only be what happened initially. If the review quality went WAY up (because the number of reviews went WAY down), it would become very clear what patents were likely to be validated by the USPTO and therefore once asserted, the defendant would have a clearer idea of whether the patent they were being threatened with was going to be thrown out.
Instead of only reviewing when a case is file, what if the plaintiffs could not file in court until the review was complete?
I don't know, it is possible it might not help with that. The whole idea hinges on both the review (after assertion) being of high quality and the ability to be awarded fees if the defendant prevails.
I realize your example covers groups that would never have the money to go to court in the first place though. One deterrent would be the fact that those groups also would not be a huge source of revenue either--the trolls would have to pursue many of them to make significant amounts of money and its likely one of them would challenge them in court.
Yeah (treated more like trademarks), I realize that seems problematic, but what I'm hoping would happen would be that bad patents would stop being filed in the first place when they realized the amount of scrutiny they would undergo if they tried to actually use them.
This all assumes that the quality of the review would go WAY up.
There are other behaviors I think would occur:
- I think companies would file lots and lots of patents at least initially.
- I think some companies/individuals would probably ignore others' patents assuming they would not assert them (but this would be a good outcome if those patents were of the quality today)