I don't normally like the 'Activist Judge' term, since it's often just used by Conservatives to describe any ruling by a 'Liberal' judge that they don't like.
But in this case it actually really does fit. This judge is stepping so far out of line to try to nullify a SCOTUS ruling that he ought to be impeached and removed from the bench.
Forget employees.
His sales doctrine basically says you have to refuse to sell ANYTHING in East Texas to stay out of it.
You also have to avoid advertising in East Texas, so I guess all your TV ads have to specifically exempt whatever TV networks air in East Texas. And all web ads have to never appear on IP addresses associated with East Texas.
And hell, while we're at it, your website should probably not even show up on google search results done in East Texas. Plus you need to IP block East Texas on your website.
So essentially, there's not a single business that sells things in America that can survive his East Texas ruling.
Given that Tom Wolf is still governor of PA, I highly doubt that the PA bill will pass. I'd be very shocked if he signed it given that the GOP is normally the ones who support these anti-protester laws, and Wolf is a Democrat.
But that doesn't change how absurd and draconian this proposal is, and how shocking it is that these 7 legislators would even consider it for a moment.
We all know Jesus said "Thou shall not kill, but thou may beat someone half to death as much as thou likes".
Video games cross that line by letting you kill imaginary people!
And this is exactly why judges should send a harsh lesson to the cops and prosecutors by overturning ALL convictions (and plea bargains) obtained through use of the illegal Stingray device they didn't have permission to use.
Cops and prosecutors won't stop violating our rights in the names of catching criminals unless the courts do something drastic like this.
(And no, moves like this aren't unprecedented. The US SCOTUS for example has let people who were clearly murderers go free over the justice system blatantly violating their rights to a fair trial)
The ISPs should take a lesson from history, 'permanent' rules don't stay permanent if everyone else hates them.
... But that's kind of the point of trademark law, they CAN'T call themselves 'google engines' while Google owns the trademark on Google.
So... politicians who deride their opponents as 'Elitists' for being too smart?
There's plenty of reasons for that, the biggest being that streaming simply can't be as profitable as the long-standing practice of forcing cable TV customers on to bloated bundles filled with channels (like ESPN) that they may not want. ESPN currently makes $7.21 for each cable TV subscriber, many of which pay for ESPN begrudgingly.
Oh no! You say if we lose tens of millions of customers who are FORCED to buy our product but never use it, and would never buy it otherwise, will cost us money?!?
But we're ESPN! We're entitled to that money we did nothing to earn!
I'm going to go back to sticking my head in the sand while swimming in that shrinking pool of free money we did nothing to earn!
Comcast and Wall Street would be asking for trouble from the government if they actually succeed in going through with this.
One large corporation is much easier to break up than several smaller ones.
And it's much easier to prove the need to force new regulations on them if they're literally the ONLY big name cable company/ISP left. Such as regulations treating them as a utility (which would greatly limit their profitability).
ISP connection speeds is one area that Wall Street types really leave me scratching my head at their penny-wise pound-foolish approach.
Sure short term they make more profit off of investing in ISPs that don't spend more on infrastructure. But long term you not only undermine the ISPs when infrastructure ages and decays, you undermine a large part of the US economy to. Hence Wall Street's hatred for spending more money on ISP infrastructure is actually likely COSTING them money on all the other many businesses they invest in that need fast Internet connections.
Even Wall Street's "I got mine already" attitude doesn't make sense here, because the effects of much of the country not having high speed Internet connections does hurt many of their investments.
Plus other economic opportunities to start new businesses simply aren't possible with bad Internet infrastructure like we have today in much of the country. Imagine for example trying to start YouTube in the 56K dial up Modem era, it's not possible because the ISP infrastructure wouldn't have supported it.
This kind of an offer is merely really stupid.
In my opinion the most annoying way cable has tried to look 'innovative' is throwing HBO for free for a year onto their offerings. I mean it's literally in almost every cable ad lately. They seem to think offering HBO for free for a year proves they're innovative.
But unlike most of the cable channels, you can buy it online with HBO Now without a cable subscription. So... what do we need to have it bundled with a costly cable subscription for?
I didn't even realize they were spelled differently until I read this.
I was wondering the same thing about this being a violation of their trademark when I read this story.
I imagine people of the Haliburton town could use the name just fine without issue (similar to how people who live in Hersey PA can use the name Hersey), but the trademark could be an issue.
LOL silly Christenson, your civil rights don't matter when you work for a giant rich corporation known as the NCAA.
"Markey asked Pai what problem he is trying to fix by repealing net neutrality rules. Pai responded, "One of the concerns we have raised is these regulations might be dampening infrastructure investment."
Hey Pai, I hear that we might be about to be invaded by an evil race of space aliens.
And I hear that these aliens might be allergic to milk and anyone who drinks at least 1 gallon of it a day.
So since this might very well be true even though we have no evidence of it, this calls for drastic changes! We must mandate everyone buy and drinks a gallon of milk every day, because you know, it might fix a serious problem that may or may not exist.
Because you know, that makes as much sense as throwing out a good net neutrality system that works and ditching all consumer protection, when all the evidence shows if we change anything we should go in the opposite direction of more consumer protections against the broadband/cable monopolies.
... Who would even want to buy this data, and what good would it do them?
I mean, unlike most data, layouts of your house seem pretty darn useless for advertisers.
And buying the data so other smart devices you buy can use it really isn't a good idea. If some other devices will need the data to function, what happens if someone you have no data on buys your product?
Seriously, I'm a freaking software developer, and even I think this just stupid and all downsides for the Vacuum Cleaner company due to the lost profits this negative press will cause them.
Well of course. Those poor businesses worth tens of billions of dollars need all the help they can get. :(
LOL cute, an AC forgets who's in the white house, and how lawsuit happy he is when it comes to his businesses.
A sane president would try to stop this.
An insane president would see this as an opportunity to do the same thing to stop the 'fake news media' from speaking 'fake news' about him.
Re: Church of Comcast?!
Honestly, that would make more sense than the freedom of speech argument Comcast is making.