Tanner Andrews’s Techdirt Profile


About Tanner Andrews

Tanner Andrews’s Comments comment rss

  • Sep 9th, 2017 @ 6:33am

    Re: Re: Re: Shiva Will Appeal

    Is there any chance an appeals court could uphold the dismissal yet also reverse the trial court judges denial of the California SLAPP issue

    Sure. The normal vehicle would be that Techdirt files a cross-appeal, raising the issue of whether the Cali anti-SLAPP statute should apply. While it might not, initially, have been worth an appeal to decide the issue, you are already in for an appeal since Mr Email has filed his notice. Someone will have to write a brief anyway.

  • Sep 9th, 2017 @ 6:28am

    Re: Re: Shiva Files Notice of Appeal

    That sounds to me like a suggestion for a cross appeal, on the issue of whether the California anti-SLAPP law should be applied to award fees, where speaker is located in California and speech is uttered in that state.

  • Sep 2nd, 2017 @ 3:14am

    Re: theme birthday party planners

    The amazing thing is that this birthday party spammer just contributed about as much to the discussion as did Podyelka. Maybe more, since Mr Birthday Party Spammer probably will go away, and we cannot count on Podyelka to do the same.

  • Sep 2nd, 2017 @ 3:05am

    Spoliation Instruction

    If the officer has a personal video camera, and that footage is not available to the defendant, he is likely going to request a spoliation instruction.

    The judge instructs the jury, in effect, that because the evidence was in the sole custody and control of Officer McSnarfley, and has disappeared without good explanation in light of the officer's knowledge of impending litigation [prosecution], the jury should presume that the missing video would have refuted the cop's story.

  • Aug 29th, 2017 @ 3:52am

    Re: Re: 'Ignoring paying customers'

    Look at a grocery store. They have some pilferage and they do try various methods to stop/minimize it

    Home Depot are trying a new technology. Instead of discouraging pilferage, they are sacking people who write down tag numbers of pilferers, or who pick up goods dropped by pilferers on their way out.

    This is part of their new, more efficient brick-and-morter experience program. The new technology allows people to select merchandise, carry it to their cars, and depart. This is a real time-saver over the old method, where shoppers were expected to queue up to pay.

    I got a newspaper column out of them last year, but I doubt that they are alone in trying out the new fast-exit schemes.

  • Aug 26th, 2017 @ 8:27am

    Re: Re: Nice precedent here

    Do you get precedent with summary judgments?

    Of course. Celotex Corporation v. Murtle Nell Catrett, Administratrix, 477 U.S. 317 (1986).

    I cannot say that most reported cases are summary judgments. However, a lot of them are. That is most likely because summary judgments present the pure questions of law which appeals courts are intended to decide.

  • Aug 5th, 2017 @ 9:07am

    Geographic Name Trademarks

    Things could be worse. There is a lot of grifters out in California who trademarked the name of Hollywood, a city between Miami and Palm Beach, and now attempt to prevent people from using that name to denote origins of goods and services.

  • Aug 5th, 2017 @ 8:31am

    Re: Golden Goose Eggs

    Butthurt Cases - funding a new generation of lawyers looking for a golden goose to shake down

    It is better than that. Remember that there is also a defendant, who may well need to lawyer up as Google did. So not only is the lawyer filing the silly suit eating, but he is providing a necessity for another lawyer to eat.

    And yes, it probably is turtles all the way down.

  • Aug 3rd, 2017 @ 4:51am

    Proper Response to Bumptious Threats

    Occasionally, there is a real possibility of infringement or confusion. While those appear to be the few golden needles among a hay-rack full of straw, I understand that the sample here may be selected.

    With al that disclaimed, then, let us take the opportunity to cheer for the Hometown Committee. They did the right thing. The received bumptious threat, and decided to have the matter properly sorted.

    By doing this, the Hometown Committee get the advantage of venue. It's in their district, not out in Indiana. The evidence is close at hand; they need not ferry witnesses and exhibits across three states.

    Ultimately it may be an expensive mistake for the Whiting chamber. And perhaps it will get them some publicity, to serve as a caution for the others.

    I have to admit that I have thought someone should do this in many of the previous cases mentioned here in Techdirt. It's easy for me to say this, as I am not licensed in the relevant courts and states.

  • Aug 3rd, 2017 @ 4:28am

    Maybe He Should "Lawyer Up"

    I am not familiar with the laws of Mass, or even how to spell the entire state name, and am certainly not licensed there.

    It follows that I should not offer legal advice on the matter. None the less, I can offer something similar. After this time and trouble, he ought to talk to a lawyer. The local bar assn will likely have someone in the area who is familiar with that area of law.

    There may be a fee-shifting provision, or there may not be. Someone more familiar with that area would likely know.

  • Jul 9th, 2017 @ 2:24pm

    So, What Happens When...

    some web-based service receives the National Security Letter via some electronic maildrop which is automatically published? The NSL shows up, and if the right person is busy it may be up for a considerable amount of time.

    Of course there also remains the question of how one would prosecute a defendant. You probably have to explain to a jury how the publication was wrong, and the basis for the classification.

  • Jul 9th, 2017 @ 1:45pm

    Re: Preliminary v. Permanent Injunction

    If Bob Murray won the case, he could constitutionally seek a permanent injunction prohibiting John Oliver from repeating the statements found to be defamatory

    You may want further information. Willing v. Mazzocone, 393 A.2d 1155 is the case they teach in school, but of course you should probably not forget Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697.

  • Jun 7th, 2017 @ 1:58am


    Have shrink-wrap licenses ever held up in court?

    Sure. Pro-CD v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (US 7th Cir. 1996). Possibly wrongly decided and unconvincing to the rational, but there it is.

  • May 27th, 2017 @ 1:09pm

    Re: Re:

    with Leaking of Classified Materials, which is treason

    We may all be getting dumber just from being exposed to folks crying that leaking classified reports of government misdeeds is ``treason''. Treason is defined as (1) levying war against the country or (2) adhering, giving aid and comfort to the enemies.

    Exposing official crimes may make officials uncomfortable, but it does not appear to rise to the level of waging war.

    We may also be made a bit dumber by exposure to whoever came up with this silly ``markdown'' idea as some sort of unreliable replacement for HTML. Get used to it, being competent in the language of the web is so old-fashioned and stupid is the new orange spray-tan.

  • May 9th, 2017 @ 8:36pm

    Interesting Problem

    In some areas, evidence collected by the state, such as these recordings, is discoverable. If you are representing the defendant, you have a right to the evidence.

    If the state has, for whatever reason, entrusted the evidence to some third party, then it will be up to the state to retrieve it and furnish it. Otherwise, having put potentially exculpatory evidence out of reach, you have a fairly bad <i>Brady</p> [373 U.S. 83] problem.

    I do not normally do criminal, I am not licensed in your state, and I am not your lawyer.

  • May 9th, 2017 @ 8:28pm

    Re: There but for the grace of God go I.

    <blockquote> you could so easily be kidnapped and murdered (through negligence) </blockquote>
    Nope. Negligence requires a lack of intent. Murder requires intent to kill, which may be formed in advance and expressed as ``Motherfucker, I'm going to kill you.'' but need not be.

    Normally intentional police killings are not prosecuted because it would make the officers feel bad.

    (No, I do not know who thought of this silly ``markdown'' stuff. Sorry about that. Just pretend the HTML is working.)

  • Apr 16th, 2017 @ 7:01pm

    Re: Review link

    <blockquote> WHy not link to the actual review? </blockquote>
    Perhaps because the actual review (per your link) has gone away. There is a review mentioning the history: company got sore, disabled device; conclusion is that you are the mercy of an unreliable start-up.

    I do not have a powered garage door opener. My garage is downtown and has huge, old wooden doors sliding horizontally. Had I such a thing, however, I am sure that I would not deal with a company which has demonstrated that it and its devices operate on whim.

    (Who had the brilliant idea for this "markdown" stuff, anyway?)

  • Mar 12th, 2017 @ 3:16am

    The VIP Tent for City Officials

    Leads to interesting speculation. It could be a legitimate city function where the officials are there to carry out city business. In that case, it needs to be open, pursuant to S:286.011; the consequences of violation could be noteworthy.

    It is also possible that the tentind and feeding of the officials serves no legitimate function, but that could then be deemed ``unauthorized compensation'' under Ch. 713.

    Fortunately, it's not my file, so I do not have to decide.

  • Feb 15th, 2017 @ 2:15am

    Re: Re:

    Isn't there a difference between copying and moving? I think I understand that a 'copy' may be made in RAM during the move process, but it is fleeting. Isn't it?

    Doesn't matter. MAI Systems v. Peak Computer, 991 F.2d 511 (US 9th Cir. 1993). Admittedly the court got it embarrassingly wrong, but that happens and you get to live with it.

    (and who came up with the dumb idea to use this ``use markdown'' cruft anyway?)

  • Jan 13th, 2017 @ 6:02am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: RFCs

    doesn't want to reference the RFC

    Certainly it would be hard for him to reference them without bringing himself into frivolous territory. My copy of RFC733 (format for ARPANET electronic mail) is dated 1977, which is somewhat prior to the plaintiff's publication.

    The problem is authentication. The authors have surely moved on from their institutions at the time of publication, and some may no longer be available at all.

More comments from Tanner Andrews >>