I couldn't help but wonder if this was a lawyer. Or some shady outfit hired to enforce trademarks and copyrights.
He is a real lawyer.
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/89688
However, he specializes in IP law. And he has been a Cal lawyer since 1979. That is a very senior lawyer with over 35 years of experience. You would think that someone who has been in this game this long would know better.
So.... I'm thinking that some newby associate, or even a clerk in his office, is making these claims.
Bonus as the motivation? Seriously. I think the motivation was to keep from being let go. Fail to meet your quota, out the door you go.
There are lots of layoffs in the banking industry. Everyone is scared.
These staff know that getting a new job is very difficult. They have mouths to feed. We don't have a nice safety net in the US. So they do what they have to do to live another day.
The management met their numbers, got their bonus. The fallout is tomorrow's problem.
I have written to the Calif. Dept of Weights and Measures asking them to do this exact thing in the past. They told me that they don't have jurisdiction.
If a business sells a product by some metric, then I can't imagine why it would not fall under this department's jurisdiction. I wrote in complaints about AT&T Wireless charging me for megabytes of data that didn't make any sense.
I fail to see why mobile cellular data, minutes on calling cards, internet data caps, whatever, are exempt from regulation. There is something very wrong with allowing a merchant to control the "meter" for their product.
I also wanted to add. The cable TV companies will learn the hard way that when these Millienials do have kids, those kids aren't going to watch cable TV. They are going to be using digital data apps using entertainment that the cable TV companies have no ownership of.
..."most cable sector executives still desperately cling to the narrative that cord cutting is a fad that stops once Millennials procreate."
Yea. They don't realize that most Millienials can't afford to procreate. You know, with those crazy tuition loans, sky high rents, low salaries, rising health insurance co-pays and premiums, and other more important bills than cable TV.
Don't start watching if you have to work the next day. You will be glued to your TV for the next 12 hours.
Yea... I made that mistake. But it was worth it.
Thank you. I was wondering the same thing. Doesn't that mean that Russia wants access to my Gmail here in the US?
I wonder of the FSB has presented Putin with an invoice for doing this massive job? Talk about unfunded directives!
Let me add. I really don't think that any judge is going to let plaintiffs do this very often. After all, they wasted the courts time too. So he/she must have done a damn good job convincing a judge of the merits of his/her argument.
Man. I am really torn here. I don't like absolutes that leave no discretion. It leads to insanely stupid execution of policies.
The classic example is the zero tolerance of drugs/weapons policy in schools that cause them to blow misunderstandings and mistakes out of proportion. Or the mandatory sentencing laws that force judges that hand out sentences that don't come close to matching the circumstances of the case.
We have to trust judges. If a judge felt that this case was enough of a mistake that it should not appear in the records, then I feel he needs to have the discretion to purge it.
What should be examined here is the process that is used to purge this case. Was the defendant notified? Was he/she allowed to contest the judge's decision? If all three parties are cool with it, then let them do it.
I think a good balance would be:
(a) Approval of defendants
(b) Automatic review of decision by that judges superiors
The Govt can ban the deletion of logs. And they can require logs be created, archived, and surrendered to any Barney Fife LEO who darkens their door.
In light of the SS7 exploit hacks, why do police bother with Stingray's any more? That has to be a serious threat to Harris Corp (Maker of The Stringray).
This is pure corporate welfare.
Dear Taxpayers.
My business model no longer works. So we demand that you taxpayers give your hard earned money to the government to prop us up.
Love,
The old fashioned recording industry
The FBI's obsession with his work phone appears even more disingenuous when you factor in what they did with the physical evidence.
The police and FBI allowed the neighbors to break in to and loot the shooter's condo less than 2 days after the murders.
I would have thought that their personal household would hold a hell of a lot more clues than his work phone. Yet in less than 48 hours they left it all open to be spoiled.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/04/reporters-rush-into-home-san-bernardino-shooting-suspects
I suspect that they aren't wrong about damage to their equipment. It is well known that gangs control access to phones in many prisons and jails. So in addition to paying off the prison itself for a contract, I suspect that this company also has to pay extortion to the gangs that control the access. Otherwise, their equipment will get damaged in an "unfortunate accident". Nor will they have access to their customers.
Reducing the rates this drastically won't allow them to continue to pay the current extortion rates.
Just a thought.
I don't work in law. But I suspect that receiving nonsense lawsuits filed by nutters with the flimsiest grasp on reality is normal for court clerks.
I suspect that the clerks also have a protocol that filters these out these suite to prevent them from clogging up court resources.
The only reason this suit makes TechDirt is because the list of defendants is many large Internet companies.
Perhaps the courts should require that lawyer must file any suits. And that they lawyer could be disbarred for filing nonsense.
Apple could really help themselves by stop parking profits offshore and paying US taxes. That would give them a lot more leverage with Congress.
This is clearly a trademark issue. Not a copyright issue. Hutchings attempted to publish a book using Twain's good name. That is clearly trademark infringement. It would confuse customers
Twain's estate would have no copyright claim. Hutchings wrote the book. Its her book and she has the copyright on it (Or whoever she assigned to the copyright too).
Wouldn't it be easier to just build a wall around the city, put armed guards on the wall, prevent anyone from leaving, and call it it a day?
Oh wait. That is what a prison is for.
* slow clap *
"...Trademark law exists not just to protect the rights of those who create, but to preserve the legacy and value of their art..."
Wait... isn't that Copyright law?