"It would mean that merely being outside near a protest would put you at risk of serious criminal liability"
This is the point. As the next few years proceed and the administraiton becomes even less popular, it needs some way to scare people from protesting.
Even if these defendents are found innocent, future potential protesters know they run a risk of having to defend themselves in court if they protest. That's chilling.
In the UK the licence to practice medicine is managed by the General Medical Council who can and do withdraw the licence from doctors who perform unethically. There is a formal process called "fitness to practice" which the GMC can invoke to withdraw a licence. One of the grounds under which a doctor can be found unfit to practice is a "doctor has abused a patient?s trust or violated a patient?s autonomy or other fundamental rights."
What is the state or federal equivalent in the USA? Can the doctors be reported to it?
Fitness to practice (UK): http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/21721.asp
The ruling would have to be pretty contentious for that to happen...
I think this would count as contentious. Alsup worked very hard on his ruling and given the amici that addressed his court I think there would be some very vocal agitation by some very rich corporations.
As has been commented on above, companies can't just drop everything.
However, when contracts come up for renewal, or new contracts are being allocated, you can expect European lawyers to be urging extreme caution about moving services outside the EU. The EU (the UK especially) is not perfect, but it's at least a partial risk mitigation.
I've not read the entire document but when Apple claimed the copyright holders were responsible for the differential pricing did the panel drill down and ask the copyright holders why? (Even just to validate the story told?)
Trouble is, if they aren't slapped down very hard indeed then it will be used as an example of ?look how much you can misbehave and still get away with it?.
I still have visions of the judge passing a case to the DOJ who drop the ball, or referring them to their respective Bar Associations who deliver only mild slaps on the wrists.
The reason LLCs put LLC after their names is to inform principals choosing to enter contract with them that they are protected by liability limitations. If I choose to buy a fridge from an LLC and it goes BK after taking my money I know that I have a low chance of getting my money back. And I knew that when I chose to give them my money.
Righthaven went after people without giving them any choice. The sued parties never had an option of "shall I be sued by an LLC or another sort of company". I think the limitation of liability may not apply here.
(Certainly I think it should not apply but that's just me.)
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Bob Dowling.
The whole point
"It would mean that merely being outside near a protest would put you at risk of serious criminal liability"
This is the point. As the next few years proceed and the administraiton becomes even less popular, it needs some way to scare people from protesting.
Even if these defendents are found innocent, future potential protesters know they run a risk of having to defend themselves in court if they protest. That's chilling.
Medical licensing
In the UK the licence to practice medicine is managed by the General Medical Council who can and do withdraw the licence from doctors who perform unethically. There is a formal process called "fitness to practice" which the GMC can invoke to withdraw a licence. One of the grounds under which a doctor can be found unfit to practice is a "doctor has abused a patient?s trust or violated a patient?s autonomy or other fundamental rights."
What is the state or federal equivalent in the USA? Can the doctors be reported to it?
Fitness to practice (UK): http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/21721.asp
Re: Appeals
I think this would count as contentious. Alsup worked very hard on his ruling and given the amici that addressed his court I think there would be some very vocal agitation by some very rich corporations.
Contract renewal is key
As has been commented on above, companies can't just drop everything.
However, when contracts come up for renewal, or new contracts are being allocated, you can expect European lawyers to be urging extreme caution about moving services outside the EU. The EU (the UK especially) is not perfect, but it's at least a partial risk mitigation.
The iTunes excuse
I've not read the entire document but when Apple claimed the copyright holders were responsible for the differential pricing did the panel drill down and ask the copyright holders why? (Even just to validate the story told?)
Re: Video from security cameras
When the hard drives are returned I expect this footage will have been "accidentally deleted". (And overwritten a half dozen times just to be sure.)
Re:
Oh, it will be used as an example, all right.
Trouble is, if they aren't slapped down very hard indeed then it will be used as an example of ?look how much you can misbehave and still get away with it?.
I still have visions of the judge passing a case to the DOJ who drop the ball, or referring them to their respective Bar Associations who deliver only mild slaps on the wrists.
What can the judge do entirely by himself?
Limitation of liability may not apply
The reason LLCs put LLC after their names is to inform principals choosing to enter contract with them that they are protected by liability limitations. If I choose to buy a fridge from an LLC and it goes BK after taking my money I know that I have a low chance of getting my money back. And I knew that when I chose to give them my money.
Righthaven went after people without giving them any choice. The sued parties never had an option of "shall I be sued by an LLC or another sort of company". I think the limitation of liability may not apply here.
(Certainly I think it should not apply but that's just me.)