Hey it's a good thing she's got nothing to hide, and therefore nothing to fear!
You laugh, but what if she were in the closet and afraid of family/friends/community's reaction? Wanna bet that the DHS would find a way to out her? Or if she were on drugs for HIV? "It was a false alarm; we thought her Stribild was actually pills hiding cocaine."
Well, if they keep that up, access to wikipedia from Germany will re-route to a notice explaining that they are not able to comply with current German law regarding secondary liability at this time. Plus the details of this and similar cases.
I still have to ask, why haven't their licenses to practice law been revoked? They should be criminally liable for their behavior, and charged/sentenced accordingly.
Since it's about as clear-cut as it can get without some bloodstained bills with the trio's man-juice on it, I figure the courts are going through all the formalities as an example to the next bright lawyer who thinks he's got a foolproof way to use the court to extort money from people.
Losing your license, being hit with fees... that might be shrugged off by an egotistical bastard - after all, if you rake in millions first, then you don't care if you don't have a license to practice or have to pay some percentages of it out; you've got enough money to live comfortably.
But referral to the IRS? Federal prosecutors? That might change their mind.
I fully expect at this point to see some jail time for the trio. Probably not more than five years apiece or anything, but I'm fairly certain the judges are getting irritated enough to hunt for *anything* that puts them in a cell.
To be honest, this means that as soon as someone comes out with a genuine invention or innovation X and patents it, someone else can swoop along and submit a whole bunch of patents that are simply "X using ___".
Effectively forcing the actual inventor to either pony up some money or not be able to use *their invention* in any useful circumstance except on its own.
Oh, how I loathe patents that are "do this existing thing, but online" or, more generically, "combine these two existing things".
It's like a PhD dissertation - sure, you can (and probably will) use and discuss the work of others, but there's got to be some original research in there.
Or where you sleeping during your security/networking course?
Sure, technically; I generally refer to any keys created in a similar fashion as "Diffie-Hellman keys" though. People seem to know what I'm referring to (assuming they're familiar with cryptography, that is).
Just about everyone who takes a security course (and probably most who take a networking course, to be honest) in computer science learns about Diffie-Hellman keys.
The man knows his stuff *solid*. And sure, he doesn't have a masters... he has an (honorary) doctorate. Two of 'em. No need for a full-time academic position - he was in ICANN as a VP in charge of cryptography, developed some of Nortel's cryptography, worked at Sun...
You might be able to get it kicked at a lesser cost by having the lawyer contacting the collection company; the latter would probably not be happy to have to spend money for a court defense they almost certainly would lose.
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that contract law requires all people to be adequately informed, and the clauses to not be unconscionable. I'm pretty sure that in aggregate, that clause fails those tests.
Yup; a speech restriction is acceptable in an employment contract (also because they're generally of the "don't say anything about projects in development/private information that you have access to as an employee" type), but in a sale.
The closest you can get that would be acceptable to the hypothetical court is a "if you behave badly in game/on forums/etc we reserve the right to cancel the service".
Well, some terms can have legal force, but the courts tend to axe unreasonable terms or 'small print'-type terms.
For example, a court would likely uphold a term that cancels a provided service if the customer performs a charge-back (see Steam), but would slap down a term that states, like here, that you cannot say anything negative about the company or face a fine.
Of course, the other directions of attack are just gilding the lily (terms not in effect at the time of sale, it being a third party who complained, the sale not being completed), but why not pile them all on as we mock them?
How else could that miraculous theory of evolution get up and running without the original life-form? Therefore, abiogenesis would be prerequisite, otherwise you've got nothing to work with.
... didn't I just mention some of the scientific research into the formation of an original life-form?
But you're incorrect on another level - abiogenesis and evolution are both distinct theories, and evolution does not require abiogenesis.
For example, let's conceive of God creating that first life-form and letting it go to reproduce and change. There you go, evolution without abiogenesis in a single sentence.
Evolution concerns itself with an existing population changing over time, including to the extent that the genetic codes cannot be recombined (ie, differing species). Anything else (fossil record, genetic profiles, etc) are observations used to validate or disprove the theory; the theory only applies once there is a living organism that can reproduce.
In a 1959 paper, Loren Eiseley claimed that "the leading tenets of Darwin's work – the struggle for existence, variation, natural selection and sexual selection – are all fully expressed in Blyth's paper of 1835". He also cited a number of rare words, similarities of phrasing, and the use of similar examples, which he regarded as evidence of Darwin's debt to Blyth. However, the subsequent discovery of Darwin's notebooks has "permitted the refutation of Eiseley's claims".
Perhaps you should read the wikipedia article you offered up?