This is what happens when judges like jailing folks
This is not surprising. A lower-court judge who sides with prosecutors on a warrant challenge is common. It would be news if he overturned it.
This doesn't mean the judge was wrong, and that the law was violated and the search must be suppressed. It was, and it the fruits of the illegal search should be suppressed.
However, this happens all the time. Trial judges looking at warrants often let the Fourth Amendment be trampled. So much so, one wonders whether these judges have even read the Fourth Amendment or any illegal search cases. Or if they just don't care and don't want to do their job.
Technically, you're arrested if you're cuffed and processed, and not allowed to leave an area. Whoever said that was "technically being detained" must be reading from the cop's handbooks because often get confused about when and how they can stop folks. A real easy bright line for most judges is when the cuffs go on.
It is also technically false arrest and false imprisonment.
Although, to make it even more confusing, the technical terms "arrest" and "detention" are different for some specific regulatory and procedural situations.
Nevertheless, as far as Constitutional rights are concerned, this was "technically" an arrest, plain and simple.
However, this could have been much worse. It appears the Supreme Court is hanging its hat on the "looks like a duck" rationale. As bad as that rationale is, this should not impact cloud services much.
Then again, trial courts can be stupid and read Supreme Court decisions in unexpected ways. So the problem for cloud providers is that the word "should" is in there, which means there is no bright line rule and any such business will expose a provider to certain litigation risks.
Terrible decision. But it could have been much worse.
"For all Freedom of Information Act requests, there is an exemption from said FOIA requests any and all public records, and said records are further exempted from the First Amendment. But not the Second Amendment. Because we like it if a gun is involved."
The University System of Georgia is being sued, not the University of Georgia.
The University System of Georgia oversees a number of universities in Georgia, including UGA, Georgia Tech, Georgia State University, Valdosta State University, Kennesaw State University, and the university/college whose records are at issue in this matter: Georgia Perimeter College. (I grew up within walking distance of the GPC main campus, which was then called DeKalb College.)
UGA does not have a budget shortfall. However, mismanagement, possible corruption, possible theft, and possible fraud has left GPC with a significant budget shortfall. An investigation into this is still ongoing to the best of my knowledge.
In short: 1. The University System of Georgia is being sued; 2. The records pertained to Georgia Perimeter College (GPC); 3. The records did not pertain to the University of Georgia; 4. Sam Olens can be ridiculous in his court pleadings (which is me editorializing).
Re: Re: I'm a trial lawyer and I'm for patent reform, if done correctly
This would require a shift in the burdens placed on patent attorneys in prosecuting a patent. I do think this could provide some benefit, but at the same time you have to be careful about how far you take it.
No matter what, someone will want a patent or other bit of IP to cover as broad an area as possible.
Further, while narrowly tailoring patents sounds great initially, it may open up the need to file dozens, or hundreds, or thousands of patents where now you may only need to file one to cover an invention.
In addition, having a narrowly tailored focus may allow bonafide infringers to escape while harming legitimate inventors and prevent them from obtaining a proper remedy.
In short, it is not a simple balance of issues.
Which is why the simple act of properly funding the USPTO would go so very far without having to tinker with the underlying law.
Also, get rid of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). They're a bunch of idiots.
This is one of the funniest things I've seen today
I first read about this on Slashdot. An article about these charges was two articles above an article about Cisco complaining to the President about how the NSA's backdoors on its systems have hurt international sales badly.
I am so disappointed that the county and government I grew up thinking were the good guys have been behaving like the bad guys.
I'm a trial lawyer and I'm for patent reform, if done correctly
Looked at the linked article and all it does is state that trial lawyers are pressuring Senate Democrats.
Really? Which ones?
Because, you know, there are actual trial lawyer associations which lobby, so I would prefer to know which ones are doing said lobbying (if any) against patent reform.
For example, what is the American Association for Justice's take on this?
What I've read so far on its views is that (1) this is rush legislation with problems, (2) the legislation does not fix fee diversion wherein Congress takes USPTO fees away from the USPTO and therefore fails to adequately fund the office (best way to fight a bad patent is to fund the USPTO so it stops bad patents), (3) places burdens on plaintiffs which will impact patent trolls and non-patent trolls alike, and (4) reduces the ability of the federal courts to weigh damages and fees on case-by-case basis by removing a judge's decision making ability.
In all seriousness, patent reform is important and needs to be undertaken. However, one of the most impactful ways to reform the patent process is to fund the USPTO so that it does not feel pressured to relieve backlogs by granting folks like Amazon ridiculous patents for photographing against a white background.
The best way to stop abusive patent litigation is to stop having silly or ridiculous patents being granted which are overly vague, too broad, and able to be applied in litigation to inventions so far afield as to not make sense.
There may be more going on than meets the eye, but this bullying of bloggers is ridiculous and groundless under US law.
The problem is if a blogger may have interactions with WIPO (such as a patent attorney) or otherwise be subject to non-US laws regarding defamation (assets or regular travel to Britain, for example, which has pro-Plaintiff defamation laws; or, apparently, Switzerland).
But still, bullying to censor news is bad for democracy.
"Hmmm, I could get another easy conviction belt notch. 5 year old kids roll over easy. Just have to find a way to get him charged as an adult. I mean, he knows how to use a computer, so that must mean he is mature enough to be charged as an adult. I don't even know how to use my web box of tubes."