I think that's exactly what he's trying to do. Get his client to be at most convicted of digital equivalent of trespassing, instead of the digital equivalent of break and entering or worse, attempted robbery.
1. The site is not down only because of the resiliency of the internet. The whole intent of domain seizure was to shut them down.
2. "innocent until proven guilty", but only if you are not been accused of been guilty, which would mean you are guilty. Very convenient interpretation.
3. Every websites that features women not covering their hair, exposing large swath of skin are guilty of violating some middle eastern country's law. Since the websites are available in those countries, "they have pretty much qualified at least on the surface for breaking [some country]'s law". So their domain should be seized.
Your argument fails on so many level it isn't even funny.
Don't talk about things you don't understand. It's indeed part of Chinese tradition to burn paper replicas during funeral. In the old days, they burn paper houses, paper horses and paper servants. Although LV bags are a recent addition, the tradition is very old.
General computing devices most certainly should be banned in medical devices that directly interact with patients. Those things are not designed for absolute reliability in mind, even though they are becoming very, very reliable. But the failure mode of general computing devices are just too unpredictable to be safely used in devices affecting life and death.
Stupidity by Facebook people doesn't apply here. The alleged original contract was a very basic one between a college student and one man for a very small sum. Neither of them could have envisioned the extent of this little project expanded into, so there were no lawyers breaking down every word to make sure it's water tight.
Whether the whole thing is fake or not, it is very likely that it's out of statue of limitation. In both Connecticut and New York, the Status of limitation on contract is 6 years, and in California where facebook is based, the limitation is 2 years. The initial contract was allegedly made in 2003, the last date involved in the dispute as calculated by the 84% figure is Feb 4, 2004, and this guy filed in July 2010. So it's at least 5 months too late anyway.
The government of USA is increasingly operating like the Chinese government. This unexplainedm unwarranted, unlawful seizure, followed by stonewalling and buck passing is just so typical of Chinese government. All that's left is official statement telling people that "relevant department" is handling the issue, with no further explaination about who the "relevant department" is.
He plead guilty to a lesser charge. Which usually means he committed something more serious but neither sides wants to risk loosing the case.
Regardless, the boy was convicted of ASSAULT. I think anyone who's a victim of assault have solid ground to NOT cheer for the person who assaulted him/her. And all of you who think the girl should just quit should consider how you would feel if it's you who have to quit your job because you don't want to work with someone who assaulted you.
When one of the prominent "similar goals" for this loose association of people was the return to constitutional rule, then silence on any discernible violation of constitution is a strange thing indeed.
Or judging by your second sentence, you must think there are situations where constitution needn't be followed. Good to know where your kind is coming from.
Well, with Tea baggers so worked up about constitution, personal rights, get government out of our lives, etc., etc., I would think this violation would be chalked up as another evidence that government is seriously out of control.
Ok, I guess it only matters when it's Tea Bagger's tax bills are concerned.
Sign an executive order to over turn a law passed by overwhelming number of congress people? Granted it was passed against the wishes of majority of the people, but if Obama tries to do anything to it, he'll get an impeachment hearing before any changes can be implemented.
If you people are so concerned about constitutions been shredded, stop voting in neo-conservatives.
"If the tag "App Store" was exclusive to Apple, then if someone told me they bought an app via "the" app store, I would ask them which one? Apple, Android, Amazon? "
You would only ask "which one" when the term App Store does not exclusively designate Apple's application store. Since Android's store was called Android Market, and Amazon's store didn't exist before Apple's, you wouldn't have had this confusion, until Amazon's store that is.
So it's very clear Amazon's use of App Store has created confusion in the market.