"In a final indignity (at least according to Malibu Media), he withdrew from an ongoing case, forcing it to scramble to find replacement representation "within 21 days." Three weeks might seem like plenty of time, but Malibu's increasingly-poisonous reputation likely preceded it. It failed to obtain a new lawyer in time and the judge awarded a default judgment to the plaintiff -- including nearly $160,000 in legal fees."
Was MM being sued or should that read 'defendant'?
Has TD ever thought of reaching out to the named 'inventors' of this patent for comment on the absurdity of it? Not GM, but Robert Clements, et al? I could think of a thousand questions beyond the rhetorical "Isn't this obvious?" This would be not to harass, but to really delve into the the 'creative' process that goes into such a 'unique' invention!
I was born/raised in California, and I've seen a lot of stupid, knee-jerk reactionary laws passed. We have Proposition 65 warnings that must be posted if a building contains a business that uses chemicals that are known to cause cancer. Nobel enough, right? However, EVERY building uses cleaning agents that contain some chemical that fits the mandated warning. Therefore, EVERY building has the warning, making the warning USELESS.
People have been warning of 'creeps on the internet' for 20+ years, but people will still fall victim to predators. ANY social network that seeks to connect people, from Model Mayhem to LinkedIn, will have to have a warning to satisfy a ruling like this. Every. Single. Website. People will click past them faster than an EULA, rendering the warnings USELESS.
Completely aside of the this article's intent to focus on the governments obfuscation of the method it used to track the defendants, I find it utterly abhorrent and reprehensible that the FBI ran a child porn website for *ANY* length of time! Everyone involved in this, from the decision makers to the techs, should be brought up on distributions charges. Disgusting!
So if someone uses the prenomial characterization (i.e., "Idiot") followed by a proper noun (i.e., "LA Superior Court judge Mel Recana"), would that be a linguistic structure widely used to characterize people with shorthand factual information?
Will this require trigger warnings to Australians on all TechDirt articles containing ANY information about terrorism (such as this very article)? We don't want them to automatically lose their citizenship simply for becoming educated about their government's stupidity.