I'd be really curious to see a city solicitor explain the legal basis for this Zero Tolerance program. When I go into a store, my right to be free from search and seizure by the police is MY right. A store owner can't just sign that away.
It sounds a bit like the officers are just supposed to be exercising the store owner's rights on their behalf. But that still doesn't make any sense to me.
The Berne Convention allows countries to have a "fixation" requirement in their copyright laws. The UK doesn't appear to have explicitly adopted one in their Copyright Act (and the definition of "literary work" means "any work, other than a dramatic or musical work, which is written, spoken or sung".
Of course, that doesn't mean there isn't a UK case where a court has read a fixation requirement into the law. Anyone aware of one?
There's one thing it would be nice to get some clarification on. The Kaspersky blog reads as if they just woke up one day and: "Our lawyers in the court reported that Lodsys has withdrawn its lawsuit and the judge dismissed the case ‘with prejudice’, meaning they can’t bring a similar case against us again."
And this is certainly the way the narrative has been so far: Lodsys dismisses their claim to avoid having to test it in court. I remember in the comments on the last article many people were speculating if there was any way Kaspersky could have forced the court to consider the validity of the patent, rather than just letting Lodsys get away to sue another day.
But the order states that it in response to both parties joint order to dismiss, which to me sounds like Kaspersky agreed to allow Lodsys to dismiss the case. Not that I blame them. It's not their job to chase down bad patents, and it gave them exactly what they want: they get to end this without having to give Lodsys a single dime. But if that's the case, it's very different from Lodsys just getting to choose to slink away. Can anyone dig up the original motion?
I think we're a tiny bit better off in Canada because the warrants are not being authorized by a secret court. Of course, I may be naive.
CSE's doesn't really need a warrant because they're not supposed to be operating in Canada unless they're providing technical support to another agency (in which case, they are limited to whatever authorization that agency has managed to obtain).
Technically, the court where CSIS gets it's warrants from isn't *secret*: it's the Federal Court. But while the court might not be secret, quite often the proceedings are, so it's not a big gain.
This is one of the topics that hasn't exactly been a secret; it's just that no one has been talking about it.
If you google "Solicitor General's Enforcement Standards" you can find all sorts of interesting documents, including this one-pager from the Department of the Solicitor General complaining that the requirements only apply to circuit-switched phone networks and not packet-based ones (it's an old document, I'm not sure if the SGES have been updated to address this).
Esp. considering Doyle died 83 years ago. Copyright is insane!
83 years you say? Then the Sherlock character is doomed to splinter anyway, regardless of the result of this lawsuit. There will be the official Doyle-estate sanctioned version... and his nefarious toque-wearing Canadian counterpart, a notorious freeloader who respects copyright for a mere 50 years after the author's death, and not a day longer!
I say if they don't like the terms of joining into the agreement, don't do it. It's not like they're being forced to become a part of it.
I'm not sure if you're referring to Canada in general or Davis in particular. If it's Canada in general, then I fully agree and I think it's sad the way we kowtow to US interests.
If you're referring to Davies, the way the headline is worded is a tad misleading for anyone not familiar with Parliamentary system. Davies himself has no power to set trade policy. He's just supposed to keep an eye on (and criticize) the Minister for International Trade, Ed Fast.
Fast is a member of the Conservative party, who currently have a majority government and can do whatever they want regardless of what the opposition thinks, including signing us up for oppressive international treaties without letting the opposition even see the text.
I know the fact that she later killed herself makes this all seem so much worse, but this:
First, doesn't even 15 years for a teacher raping a student seem on the light side, particularly when that student subsequently killed herself?
feels like a dangerous attitude. I know that's the easy gut reaction, but do we really want the sentence to depend on how resilient the victim is? The emotional impact on the victim doesn't really change how morally wrong the act itself was. In effect, this would be saying to victims who are particularly emotionally resilient "We don't think your rape is as bad as other rapes, because you don't seem as upset".
This post quotes the "thirty feet" figure that Henderson has been sticking to. If that's the case, then his lawyers really needed to do a better job of making it clear to the judge. In the "Facts" section of the decision the judge states that he was three to five feet away, as the police officers claim. There is no mention of the thirty feet figure at all. Near the end of the decision, the judge does talk about conflicting evidence, so maybe the issue of how far away Henderson actually was was raised. And conflicts like that are exactly why we have trials.
For any Canadians reading this, remember that the Ontario Court of Appeal earlier this year heard a similar case and held that the search of the cell phone was justified as "search incident to arrest". The case has been appealed to the Supreme Court, so we should have a nation-wide judgment on the issue soon (ish):
 The appellant, Kevin Fearon, was arrested for robbery while armed with a firearm. Upon his arrest, a police officer conducted a pat down search and located a cell phone on his person. The officer examined the contents of the phone and found photographs of a gun and cash as well as an incriminating text message. The appellant was brought to the police station and placed in an interview room. When the police returned after unintentionally leaving him alone for five hours, he gave a full videotaped confession. Throughout his confession he maintained that the firearm used in the commission of the robbery was an imitation handgun.
 At trial, the appellant sought to exclude the evidence that had been obtained from his cell phone upon his arrest. He claimed the search of the cell phone incident to arrest was a breach of his right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure protected by s. 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The appellant also sought to exclude his confession, arguing that it was obtained in breach of his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel and that it was involuntary.
 In this case, it is significant that the cell phone was apparently not password protected or otherwise “locked” to users other than the appellant when it was seized. Furthermore, the police had a reasonable belief that it would contain relevant evidence. The police, in my view, were within the limits of Caslake to examine the contents of the cell phone in a cursory fashion to ascertain if it contained evidence relevant to the alleged crime. If a cursory examination did not reveal any such evidence, then at that point the search incident to arrest should have ceased.
The purpose of a trademark is to identify the source of a product, allowing consumers to decide for themselves whether to purchase a product based on their past experience with products from that source.
Since all consumer products in North Korea were invented by Kim Il-Sung and thus are of the highest qualify and are the envy of citizens of corrupt Western governments around the world, who have only access to cheap knockoffs of the technological marvels created by the Eternal and Heavenly Leader, there is no need for trademark law in North Korea.
Every time we see one of these cases, it makes you wonder about the lawyers that Perfect 10 employs, as they don't seem to be very convincing.
I wonder about this every time I read a case like this. Their lawyers should be advising them "you won't win this, don't even try, there's no way to make even a reasonably compelling argument". So either Perfect 10 has terrible lawyers, or they're ignoring their lawyer's advice.