the ncaa is going to be screwed. this is a first amendment case, the ncaa's case boils a contract matter. free speech has historically been chained under contracts. that's why celebs with huge endorsement deals have morality clauses and the courts have ruled them legal. and the courts have also penalized people for acting in bad faith or illegal business behaviors in employment contracts.
the question is that he's been using the logo for ten years and disney has never once attempted to sue or claim he's infringing their IP. i think that might be a huge question come to trial, if everyone chips in on his legal fees do you think we could have the court decide that disney loses their trademarks involved in this because they didn't protect them.
the court is just going to have to admit that they can not remove any request involving the erasing of criminal or civil charges. honestly the court should have known the sheer amount of criminals who would try to use this to wipe their crimes from the internet.
does this mean the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation can't be a charity because it uses proprietary software from Microsoft which is a for profit entity? do all charity's get exempted from not profit status if a for profit entity uses the charity's name or logo on promotional materials to drum up business by pointing out how much of a "philanthropist" the corporation is.
why is the old guard so deadset, knowing they have maybe ten years left before the entire old guard is ushered out for the generations after 1980 have to do everything they can to screw up the government bureaucracy just like they did with the economy/jobs/environment/law/copyright system/ insert anything you can think of/
wikipedia should just make it so that in the TOS for signing up you have to disclose your job in PR and then if you don't they have the legal right to make you pay them 500,000 dollars and you agree to binding arbitration and give up all rights to seek redress in a jurisdiction that you live in.
the police more than likely had the permission of the homeowner who paid for the wifi. a criminal should never be allowed to claim evidence was improperly collected from OTHER PEOPLES PROPERTY. if someone breaks into my home and the police investigates finding fingerprints which eventually find the thief. the thief has no right to contest the arrest on the grounds that taking his fingerprints from my home violated his rights.
the criminal should have never had a leg to stand on simply because the wifi was not his and therefore he didn't have the legal right to deny the police to run the "moocherhunter" software. if you access other peoples wifi or home without permission and leave behind evidence they can use against you then expect that it WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU.
UPS’ long-standing policy is to require a legal court-ordered process, such as a subpoena, before responding to any third-party requests,” UPS spokeswoman Kara Ross wrote in an e-mail to TheBlot Magazine. “UPS is not aware of any court orders from the NSA seeking to inspect technology-related shipments.”
translation: we do allow the government to do it, because a NSL or document from the FISA court is a valid legal order. however, other than those instances no subpena have ever been served to us.
the responding officer should have arrested the principal for conspiracy to commit child abuse, destruction of evidence, and intimating a witness. it's time these petty little dictators are taught that letting kids be bullied because they aren't on the "Favorites" list is a crime.
what the supreme court fails to understand here is that there aren't many reasonable people in the law enforcement field anymore. i mean they expect officers who think that killing unarmed men on tape is no big deal, or prosecutors who hide evidence and see no problem with people spending decades in prison they should not have had to as "reasonable people." this situation is worsened by politicians who think their town needs an armored assault victim for an epidemic of "cop killings" that amounts to two offers in 30 years. reasonable people left the law side of the government years ago.
"Do you really want the owner of a flower shop to be personally liable if someone pricks their finger?"
someone pricking their finger is not a crime. i love how you come up with a civil matter that would be laughed out of the court as a reason to exclude executives from being forced to confront their criminal actions.
for example, a CEO ordering a private security officer to beat someone half to death, as a coercion tactic is something they get away with all the time. These CEO's came closer every day to bringing this country down than the hijackers on Sept 11 and not one of them is facing criminal charges. all the while the government is destroying the foundations of this country to bring "criminals and terrorists" to justice.
the only way to fix capitalism is to remove corporate person hood, and to update the laws so that when CEO's and other corporate executives that commit, allow or order crimes to be committed they can be prosecuted up to and including capital offenses.
i'm no legal scholar but since microsoft found the leaker through violating The Electronic Communications Privacy Act or the Wiretap Act can the leaker be prosecuted since all evidence is fruit of a posionious tree
if this ruling goes in Smokey's favor then it's only a matter of time before the sony bono copyright act is ruled unconstitutional since it expands copyright beyond the life of the only party who legally has claim to the copyright.