This poster does not know the law AT ALL. Please do not hire her if she pretends to be a lawyer. This is the MOST ridiculous post on TD in a long history of pseuso-legal posts in many years.
The entire tone of this post suggests the OP thinks it is preposterous that the most Evil corporation in the universe could actually be guilty. Dependent on SEO income, much? Garbage Post - and that is being generous.
Incredibly silly? What a COMPLETELY ignorant thing to say. If you had been around, you would have KNOWN how effective it was. There would BE no Fox News propaganda if it were still here. This site is about to go off my RSS feed page, now that I know what a simpleton is in charge.
Judge Forrest is a well-known corporate advocate. If there exists any basis for finding in favor of a large corporation, she will find it. If none exists, she will invent it - she's creative that way. Here, while the plaintiff is an individual, the real purpose of the ruling is to create causes of action for the large corporate IP owners - the only ones with the deep pockets to use this right of action in a widespread basis.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by ObserverInPA.
LOLOL
This poster does not know the law AT ALL. Please do not hire her if she pretends to be a lawyer. This is the MOST ridiculous post on TD in a long history of pseuso-legal posts in many years.
Apologist?
The entire tone of this post suggests the OP thinks it is preposterous that the most Evil corporation in the universe could actually be guilty. Dependent on SEO income, much? Garbage Post - and that is being generous.
'incredibly silly"
Incredibly silly? What a COMPLETELY ignorant thing to say. If you had been around, you would have KNOWN how effective it was. There would BE no Fox News propaganda if it were still here. This site is about to go off my RSS feed page, now that I know what a simpleton is in charge.
Judge (can't see the) Forrest
Judge Forrest is a well-known corporate advocate. If there exists any basis for finding in favor of a large corporation, she will find it. If none exists, she will invent it - she's creative that way. Here, while the plaintiff is an individual, the real purpose of the ruling is to create causes of action for the large corporate IP owners - the only ones with the deep pockets to use this right of action in a widespread basis.