Re: Re: Re: Re: "Now remember son, don't say or do anything. At all. Just sit there and try to look harmless."
>> the prosecution cannot use such evidence in a criminal trial
Actually that isn't fully correct due to the Adverse interference part of the Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (UK)
(Drawn form the same Wikipedia article - because I'm lazy) Adverse inferences may be drawn in certain circumstances where before or on being charged, the accused: * fails to mention any fact which he later relies upon and which in the circumstances at the time the accused could reasonably be expected to mention; * fails to give evidence at trial or answer any question; * fails to account on arrest for objects, substances or marks on his person, clothing or footwear, in his possession, or in the place where he is arrested; or * fails to account on arrest for his presence at a place.
This is also specifically a part of the standard caution that Police give anyone once arrested in the UK
"You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."[emphasis added]
NSW, Australia now has a similar thing law on inference which is very contentious though has not been really tested yet either.
>> International Grassroots Campaigns $8,903,548 * Paid to MARKETING COMPANIES and Celebrities that are members of PETA
>> Public Outreach and Education $12,528,963 * Paid to MARKETING COMPANIES and Celebrities that are members of PETA
>> Research, Investigations, and Rescue $14,745,352 * Paid to MARKETING COMPANIES, Data Analysis & Research companies (owned or controlled by PETA members) and Legal Counsel
>>> Cruelty-Free Merchandise Program $928,381 Actual money from Merchandise bought by disillusioned souls that believe the confabulations that PETA is an animal welfare organisation instead of its true purpose of making money for itself and it's upper echelon of celebrities (Quasi Scientology in other words)
>> Membership Development $6,963,668 have to pay these celebrities and members something to develop ways to disillusion the masses.
Seeded data (which is what you are talking about) unless specifically stated as seeded is still not copyrightable if it is pure numerical data.
Names of streets, or towns that do not exist is entirely different. Though if the street name etc is misspelt (which is a way to seed as well) that too is not copyrightable.
In this case anyway, the codes used by the API MUST exist for the API to even post them and are not seeded. Though if the actual data itself is, that creates other problems that brings the whole API data into a new world of mistrust.
It's exactly the same here (Australia) and NZ, Canada, etc. It's like "fight club" :)
This doesn't mean Juries aren't using it, and won't, especially for a case like this where the jury pool would be hugely on the side of Apple. And yes I know your weird voir dire procedures would try to stop it, but that there shows prejudicial problems with the US system too.
It would not meet the elements of tampering since it is designed to do it on ALL loads not specific ones. Also the criminality of this would be against Apple not the actual DoJ/FBI Apple would be a very hostile witness and the FBI/DoJ would have to initiate charges.
Do you really not understand Jury nullification over there? and how bad a PR nightmare this would actually be for your whole justice system
>>> Yes, but the difference is that the courts are not compelling the engineers... Apple is. it would be a stand against their employer, not against the work. Mixed message?
Wrong.. The court would be compelling Apple to MAKE their employees do something that Apple themselves fought tooth and nail NOT to do. Therefore the court is specifically compelling the Engineers who work for Apple to perform an action. To state otherwise is a pure dissonance.
>>> It's just a bad place to make a stand that will harm the company, and not the FBI or the court that ordered it.
Again it is like you cannot understand basic ethics. The Engineers are in an ethical quandary of NOT doing something that in their opinion (and a lot of others) would harm society as a whole, or doing something that will ultimately in the long term, no matter what, destroy the company that they work for. This is NOT a hard decision.
Apple has only a large market share in North America (and maybe japan), whereas everywhere else they are competing very badly with Android devices. If the court either orders Apple to comply with the original order, or the US government invoke the other method to acquire source code it will strike a death blow for Apple in the Mobile market worldwide and even in the USA. It could even destroy Apple's Computer market too (though not as fast).
On the Engineers side it's all about Ethics, and if they could live with the role they might play in not only maybe destroying the company they love, but also having other people know that they contributed to something that nearly Every One of their peers thinks is abhorrent.
Me.. I'd quit in a heartbeat and let the court and the media and the DoJ know publicly that that is the specific reason.
Though if I was a cynical person, I might be worried that the DoJ enact some weird wonderful law from the 17oo's that made me have to do the work anyway on pain of incarceration on charges of treason/sedition or something similar.
It just means that he sacked his Counsel and they still allegedly still sent him a bill for billable hrs that they may or may not have done.
The other point you asked below is obviously because Trkulja was bullshitting since his command of English is actually quite good and ALWAYS has been. What I make out of that statement is that someone has been confabulating to the court.
in other words Trkulja doesn't like paying his bills, tries to act the victim by making people feel sorry for him and is a huge Egotist.
Am I correct Trkulja? Hey Gibson - Can you see that LRO is getting closer by the moment based on past histrionics? I like my new hobby!
It seems Mr Trkulja has now named his elusive "Senior Australian Defamation QC" and it turns out to be a solicitor who seems to have a very dim understanding of how to communicate civilly and without showing confrontational bias on their clients behalf. Not to mention complete lack of understanding with US law, reciprocity, comity, and even parts of relevant Australian law too it seems.
I'm also wondering if they have held themselves out to be a QC/SC to their client (which would be a huge problem for them) or that their client is just a blithering egotist with a few too many roos loos in their top paddock (translation: batshit crazy)... I'll go with the last one.
It also seems that as part of the appendix/addendum to the letter that a whole heap of extraneous and non relevant comments have been included with mine being in their as well. Does Mr Gibson imply that myself is also a party to these matters? Does he really want to cast a wide net and capture huge sharks that neither he nor his client really want to antagonise into making themselves and the firm of MO a nice hobby of distraction for someone who likes a challenge and loves making examples?
As to the letter itself. From first read I am of the opinion that: * Mr Gibson and his client reside within the State of Victoria where 'gangster' is also used as a slang term; * Mr Gibson and his client reside within Australia where both 'arrogant' and 'poorly researched' commentary are NOT actionable under any Act nor legislation whatsoever, though Irony is absolutely held up to be ridiculed and condemned. * Mr Gibson by virtue of his antagonistic tone, threatening bluster and lack of candor should consider doing a LOT of CPD with emphasis on E&PR; * That Mr Gibson's client has shopped around until he has found a Firm idiotic enough (or IMO hungry enough) to take up his alleged wrong; * That Mr Gibson mentions two 'concerns notices' with one (by his client) that could not of been a concern notice under the Act and even one that is irrelevant to Techdirt since it is to another entity entirely (Though I'm wondering if counsel for Google will understand why their concern notice - if they got one - has now been enjoined with this one - could this itself be a breach of privacy under Australian APP laws or worse - only time will tell); * That Mr Gibson's client based on patterns of behaviour over the last number of years could be a prime contender for an LRO (limited or extended) under the brilliant Victorian Vexatious Proceedings Act (2014) that now due to the attached comment section anyone in their (especially including myself) has a sufficient interest in the matter for standing.
As to the "not for publication" bold type, Mr Gibson like anyone in his position knows that it is pure bluster and intimidation and has no legal weight within Australia, or anywhere, whatsoever (even the stock template footer has no legal weight and is just a standard CYA statement) and like a lot of bullies will be quite unhappy and will most likely act out when called on it (a bit of due diligence before sending these sorts of things would go a long way to stop being looked at as a fool - though I digress).
Now to the "One could not conceive a more defamatory reference than that" statement in relation to the calling of someone a gangster in Australia. Mr Gibson like his client needs to consider all bane and antidote context and actually get out into the actual community at large and listen. Even a few hrs inside the local Magistrates' Court whilst in session would remove you of that fallacious idea, or just stay in the marshmallow sensitive and constrictive cave you currently seem to both reside in.
Personally I would normally just refer you to the reply in Arkell v. Pressdram (1971) [unreported] but hey I'm bored and need a new hobby.
>>Now they explicitly demand that these clients make it clear they are not endorsed by LEGO when they use that channel to buy LEGO bricks
no.. LEGO asks them nicely. The purchasers can STILL refuse to state whether Lego endorses them or not. There is NOTHING Lego could do to the purchasers if they refuse to make a statement.
As for the discount.. Well LEGO is being looked at closely by the Consumer law powers that be in Australia for restriction on trade having an arbitrary structure on who can and cannot purchase at a discount. As for LEGO's politics?? Have you actually researched the History of LEGO and the Company behind it?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Actually, it's really quite easy to record phone calls.
>>>> my take is that it doesn't apply when your listening to (and recording) the conversation you're having at the endpoint (not 'over a system'), and especially when it's coming out of the speakerphone.
Sadly it also applies to the recording of audio coming out of a telephonic device by an external microphone etc.. Remember those suction cup microphones you could stick onto the old phones? They were illegal in Australia too :(
Our Recording/Surveillance laws are mostly all State based (and are somewhat different between the different State's) whereas actual interception of ANY communication system (tapping or using an external device) is absolutely verbotem.
Now if the device comes with it's own inbuilt recording device like most mobile phones do (or as Answering machines did) then it is quite alright under the Commonwealth (Federation of Australia) Law though might get you in trouble with the State laws..