AC, I can see why you might think that drug testing is a constitutional violation. After all, Canadians don't believe in constitutional rights. Just a bunch of bloody wankers. After all, Canada is part of the British Empire and they are still angry that the American Colonies succeeded and kicked the British out.
This could backfire against every employer in the country who could be pressured into halting drug testing. Because if this police union succeeds in stopping police officers from getting drug tested, employers are going to hold police unions all across the country responsible for this bullshit.
Employers, no matter if they are public or private or government, have the right to require drug testing of its employees if they suspect drug or alcohol use or if they are suspected to be under the influence of such drugs or alcohol.
These police unions have created a major screw-up over this, there is no way they can win on this issue, even if they succeed.
It's a violation of their union contract to undergo drug and alcohol testing? Did I miss something? Every business, every government agency, every retailer ... any job you take requires potential employees to undergo drug and alcohol testing. It's actually a requirement before you are considered for employment. Police officers are paid for by tax dollars and are subject to the same rules.
I don't know if I would feel safe if a police officer in my neighborhood was hopped up on drugs and alcohol. The very fact that they also have a badge and a gun makes that a dangerous situation.
What also makes this even worse is that if you were accused of drug and alcohol abuse, the police would confiscate your guns and you would lose your gun licenses. What the hell is going on here?
This is one case where the USPTO was quite correct. "The Slants" should never get a trademark on the name. Just because they are "Asians" doesn't mean they are entitled to flaunt an ethnic slur in the faces of everyone else. It would be the same if Native Americans were given the trademark over the Washington "Redskins".
If you allow one group to trademark names that are 'ethnic' slurs then you have to give everyone that right.
While doing some web searching on this matter, I discovered a Harvard Law write-up from 2008 on this very issue, where the state of Oregon sued some websites over this very same thing:
Although Section 105 of the Copyright Act places the works of federal government employees (so, federal statutes, federal judicial opinions, and the like) in the public domain, Section 105 doesn’t apply to state laws. Does that mean state laws are copyrightable? Although the statute is silent, the courts have always said: no, they aren’t. In Nash v. Lathrop, 6 N.E. 559, 560 (Mass. 1886), the court rested this conclusion on the unfairness of limiting public’s access to the rules that governed its conduct:
Every citizen is presumed to know the law thus declared, and it needs no argument to show that justice requires that all should have free access to the opinions, and that it is against sound public policy to prevent this, or to suppress and keep from the earliest knowledge of the public the statutes, or the decisions and opinions of the justices. … It can hardly be contended that it would be within the constitutional power of the legislature to enact that the statutes and opinions should not be made known to the public. It is its duty to provide for promulgating them; while it has the power to pass reasonable and wholesome laws regulating the mode of promulgating them, so as to give accuracy and authority to them.
Goober, you are actually quite incorrect where it concerns photographers who are 'paid' to take photographs. Under the rule of law, the photographer, since he or she are being paid for their services, is considered 'under contract' for producing those photographs. They do not own the copyright.
This is why many professional attorneys suggest that when you hire or contract with a professional photographer that you state in the contract with that photographer that you retain all copies, negatives and masters of any photos that are taken or produced by the photographer. If you don't point this out in a contract agreement with the photographer, then the photographer will retain the rights to those photographs.
Before I get rapped on the knuckles for this, it's been established that the person taking the photograph (i.e., the person pressing the button that captures the image) is the rightful owner of that particular photograph. The one exception is with professional photographers who are paid for their services to take those photos (i.e., the person who paid the professional photographer is the person who owns the copyright to those photos).
While it's true that copyright law was never intended to cover this, it nevertheless has happened that the person taking the photo retains the copyright.
The law, like any living document, evolves to change with the times. July 17, 1790 was the first recorded instance of U.S. Copyright, and it had been signed in script type by George Washington and appeared in The Columbian Centinel and is the first known copyright act to protect books, maps and other original documents.
Since then, U.S. Copyright Law has evolved to over other intellectual works such as printed publications, video, audio, photographs and other original works. While technically, Mike is correct about copyright law not being intended to cover photographs, the law evolves.
I think it's a good idea that copyright law expands to cover new areas of intellectual rights and taking photographs is nothing new. After all, copyright law does protect photographs, just ask anyone who misappropriates an A.P. News photo. I actually hear about copyright takedown requests all the time, quite a few that are never reported on Techdirt.
While too many people, businesses, corporations and lawyers wield the DMCA like it was some ban-hammer demand for removal ... I do think that there are legitimate DMCA takedown requests, and it's become common that whenever someone reports a DMCA takedown request, that everyone just assumes it's a bad thing.
I do admit that while they are far and few between, not every takedown request is a bad thing.
When are morons going to get the hint? Every time someone discovered an exploit and informed the company of the exploit, they have always acted negatively toward the information.
If I discovered an exploit, knowing full well how honest people are being treated for informing them of the exploit, I would post the exploit on every website I came across, showing people how to exploit the glitch.
While I have never honestly exploited anything, I sure as hell would not inform the company of the exploit.
Does Feinstein actually think anyone will vote for this? The 2016 elections are right around the corner and that is exactly why nobody voted to reauthorize The Patriot Act or Section 215. There's no reason why we need either.
Has there been a terrorist attack on our country that we don't know about? Maybe the FBI can fake another terrorist attack. They did that once before, if I remember correctly. Matter of fact, they did it twice.
A simple Google search turns up several different stories on the FBI either faking terrorist attacks in the United States or in helping terrorists in the country. I don't think that's what our law enforcement agencies should be doing, that is definitely not their mandate.
Mike, I understand exactly what I'm posting about. What I'm saying is that neither business entities nor people can be held liable for "what might happen". What the judge did, was put it into the minds of the jury that the patent troll in this case could be held liable for it.
The judge is not a plaintiff or a defendant in this particular case and yet he exposed his personal views to the jury.
What you're saying is that you agree with the judge. THAT is a biased view. If the plaintiff had proven his case, that would be one thing. But, the moment the judge exposed his personal views to the jury, he crossed the line. THAT is the point I'm trying to make here.
Patent trolls are an evil in this country that should be roped in. This problem has been escalating for such a long time that our government has failed to do anything to stop it. If a company owns a patent, then they shouldn't be able to sue if they don't make use of that patent. They exploit the laws of pour country because our elected representatives have failed to do anything to close those loopholes.
I'm not trying to argue with you over this but you fail to see the point I'm trying to make here. Fact is, business entities, people ... they cannot he held liable for conduct that MIGHT happen. What you're saying is that the patent troll should be held liable.
Once you've crossed that line, then you set a dangerous precedent with the point of view that individual people can also be held liable for conduct that might happen.
Mike, if I'm not mistaken, the reason patent trolls are allowed to exist is because Democrats AND Republicans have refused to pass any kind of meaningful reform regarding patent reform and you get some bad decisions by judges, like the one in this case, who decided to create a problem with the jury verdict.
I'm not saying that what the patent trolls are doing is right only that the judge made an error when he addressed the jury with his biases comments.
The fact that you're missing is that nobody can be held liable for what "MIGHT" happen in the future. Otherwise, everyone could be arrested for crimes that they'll commit in the future. The verdict in the original trial, added to the comments made by the judge, may very well be why the Supreme Court overturned the ruling by the lower court.
If we want to stop patent trolls, truly stop them, then write to your congressman and request that they do something to put a stop to this practice that patent trolls are engaging in.
Mike, nothing confusing about my statement at all. It's like finding someone guilty of a crime they'll commit in the future. This is exactly what the judge did, when he issued his instructions to the jury. The judge's comments basically placed the patent troll in an unfavorable view to the jury and this is exactly why the supreme court overturned the lower court's decision.
I'm not saying that patent trolls are a good thing. I despise patent trolls but this is one of those rare cases where the judge in the case made a grievous error. He should never have injected his own opinions into his instructions to the jury and his remarks were biased.
Judges are not supposed to care who wins or loses, they are only to preside over the case and ensure everyone is following the rule of law and the rules of evidence. The judge simply made a bad decision and he got called out for it judging by the Supreme Court's decision.
Fact is, we have never had such a law. When a new law is passed by congress, it's most often that challenges are filed against those new laws in the federal courts. The simple matter is, patent trolls are not a violation of the law and congress has refused to do anything to curb them in. They are protected by Democrats and Republicans.
Simple matter is, the judge acted inappropriately when he addressed the jury in the way that he did, which could be seen as influencing the jury in a manner that compromises the jury verdict.
This is undoubtedly why the supreme court ruled in favor of the patent troll. The judge overseeing the case should have known better.