Using a free mobile app, anyone can vote on nearly all aspects of the new team's identity and function, including calling offensive and special-teams plays.
Sounds like more Nebraska fans than Screamin' Eagles fans downloaded the app.
Everyone knows that this problem did not exist until IMDB was started in 1996. As reported by the LA Times in 1991, the world used to be a very different place: "Hollywood's obsession with youth has always been the bane of aging actors."
It is a complete defense against any or criminal action brought against an individual for civil conduct in violation of this chapter if such individual acted in a good faith reliance on—
a court warrant or order, a grand jury subpoena, a legislative authorization, or a statutory authorization;
a request of an investigative or law enforcement officer under section 2604; or
a good-faith determination that an exception under section 2602 permitted the conduct complained of.
Notice that the third item gets two "good-faith" limitations (though the first one is missing the hyphen): "a good faith reliance on a good-faith determination". It seems clear that the "good faith reliance" is on the part of the alleged offender. Who gets to make the "good-faith determination" that an exception applies?
It seems that the statute should be written as allowing a complete defense of "a good-faith belief that the conduct was subject to":
a lawful court warrant or order ...
a lawful request of an investigative or law enforcement officer ...
An "Email" mug, a "Copymouse" t-shirt, a donation, and an Insider membership. Oh, and I turned off my ad blocker (for this site). I think that covers all the bases.
So while I don't agree, I think I'm following the argument in regard to Apple products. But what about Samsung products, where the "exploding" functionality comes factory direct? To whom do I take those phones for repair?
"Appealing a dismissal is not the same thing as appealing a suit that's been dismissed." Any difference in those phrasings is imagined, not real.
Just like with other dismissals, plaintiffs appeal Anti-SLAPP dismissals all the time. The Ninth Circuit decided one such appeal, Simoni v. American Media, just last month. Do they win the appeal? Rarely. But does that stop them? Rarely.
It’s clear that Pai is serious about closing the digital divide between those who use cutting-edge communications services and those who do not.
They are closing the divide, but by redefining "cutting edge" instead of encouraging better networks. Currently, the FCC website describes all of the following as levels of "broadband":
Basic Service = 1 to 2 Mbps*
Medium Service = 6 to 15 Mbps
Advanced Service = More than 15 Mbps
Just two years ago, the FCC defined "broadband" as only those connections of at least 25 Mbps. So yes, they are closing the divide—by pretending it doesn't exist.
No, it's not forgivable. Nothing is forgivable in a blog comment. We will summon the masses upon you and tear you to bits and put those bits in a box and put that box in another box and mail it to ourselves and then smash it with a hammer.
On second thought, we forgive you. But you're going to have to ask for forgiveness again:
"Perhaps I'm biased from my own brush with the court system": you do realize you still lost, right? You didn't beat the rap. TechDirt wants to win, not lose less badly. That's probably why they need our support more than anything (hey, Mike: "1A Victory Fund" is a bit more optimistic than "TechDirt Survival Fund").
You then say: "That is, the necessity of a vigorous defense is proportional to the weakness of one's case." A more accurate statement would be: "That is, the necessity of a vigorous defense is proportional to the funding of one's opponent." Ayyadurai has $750,000 in the bank, making Charles Harder the proverbial 600,000-pound gorilla (if you convert to British currency). TechDirt has to be serious in its response.
Finally, even if Floor64 wanted to proceed pro se, it almost assuredly cannot. While individuals are free to represent themselves, companies almost always are required to be represented in court by a lawyer.
I'm glad to read that OldMugwump's comments aren't intended snarkily. My response, agreeing with an AC that "That's... not how it works at all," also was not meant snarkily. It simply was a function of pointing out that there wasn't really anything right about the comment and that to explain everything that was wrong would take way too long. I'll tackle just three points.
First, the Wanderer is correct that ArkieGuy identifies part of the problem, though it really has more to do with "waiver" than "procedural posture". "Waiver" means that arguments not made at the proper time cannot be raised later, including on appeal. "Procedural posture" means which phase of the legal process a case is in (pleadings, discovery, dispositive motions, trial, appeal). Certain arguments only work in certain phases.
For example, OldMugwump proposes having a lawyer spend part of a two-page brief arguing, "Ayyadurai didn't invent email. See these references." Whether or not it is true, that is a completely wasted argument at this juncture because the Court is not determining the truth or falsity of any of the allegations. The Court only is deciding whether Ayyadurai has alleged sufficient facts that a jury plausibly could find in his favor. So in the motion to dismiss, TechDirt rightly argued that he failed to allege certain required facts and that other facts, even if proved, don't support his claim. If TechDirt wins the motion, Ayyadurai will have to fix the complaint. Maybe he can. Maybe he can't. If he can't, TechDirt got out with the lowest time and expense possible.
Second, OldMugwump also said: "Then shut up. Let the courts do their work." This is bad advice. Our system is an adversarial one. For the most part, the courts only decide the issues raised by the parties. They don't draft your briefs for you or tell you what arguments to make. If you do a bad job, it makes their job easy, granting judgment for the other party.
Third, Oldmugwump proposed arguing: "We want legal fees and damages for this baseless case". The American legal system generally requires each party to bear its own fees, absent a statute or contract to the contrary. That's why TechDirt's lawyers went to such lengths to show that California's Anti-SLAPP statute should apply to a case filed in Massachusetts. Try effectively explaining that to a Judge in OldMugwump's proposed two pages, after no more than four hours of research.
One final comment. As for whether this is an "all-hands-on-deck, red alert," frankly, TechDirt's response seems about right. Instead of generating a slapdash response from the cheapest lawyer on the block, TechDirt has managed to respond with two solid motions. Good lawyering doesn't come cheap.
On the post: IBM Shamed Into Giving Away Awful Patent On Email Out-Of-Office Messages
Is it just me?
On the post: Indoor Football Team Lets Fans Pretty Much Run Everything From A Phone App
Hey, did we think this through?
Sounds like more Nebraska fans than Screamin' Eagles fans downloaded the app.
On the post: 'Smart' Stuffed Animal Company Leaves Voice, Other Data Of Millions Publicly Exposed
Re: Apply the correct formula to figure it out
The more they donate, the less guilty they are?
On the post: Top Russian Net Official Says Children Under 10 Shouldn't Go Online -- At All
That's why they call it
On the post: What Should We Add Next To The Techdirt Gear Store?
Re: Re:
- TechDescartes
On the post: Judge Rejects Warrant Seeking To Force Everyone At A Searched Location To Unlock Seized Electronic Devices
Re: With judges like these...
In this case, the judge is making the DOJ follow the law, rather than letting the DOJ make it up what it wished the law to be.
On the post: Judge Rejects Warrant Seeking To Force Everyone At A Searched Location To Unlock Seized Electronic Devices
All in a Name
On the post: Judge Blocks California's IMDb-Targeting 'Ageism'' Law, Citing Free Speech Concerns
Of Course It's IMDB's Fault
Everyone knows that this problem did not exist until IMDB was started in 1996. As reported by the LA Times in 1991, the world used to be a very different place: "Hollywood's obsession with youth has always been the bane of aging actors."
On the post: Federal Bill Introduced To Add A Warrant Requirement To Stingray Deployment
Re: A Minor Quibble
For those looking for the actual bill text, it's here.
On the post: Federal Bill Introduced To Add A Warrant Requirement To Stingray Deployment
I'll offer a minor quibble with Section 2605(d):
Notice that the third item gets two "good-faith" limitations (though the first one is missing the hyphen): "a good faith reliance on a good-faith determination". It seems clear that the "good faith reliance" is on the part of the alleged offender. Who gets to make the "good-faith determination" that an exception applies?
It seems that the statute should be written as allowing a complete defense of "a good-faith belief that the conduct was subject to":
On the post: Mashable Says You Shouldn't Own What You Buy Because You Might Hurt Yourself
Re: Re: Won't someone think of the sliced fingers?!
On the post: Celebrate Fair Use Week With A New T-Shirt From Techdirt
Tech De (Shopping) Cart
On the post: Mashable Says You Shouldn't Own What You Buy Because You Might Hurt Yourself
Re: Re: Sick Burn
On the post: Mashable Says You Shouldn't Own What You Buy Because You Might Hurt Yourself
Sick Burn
On the post: Techdirt Survival Fund: I Support Journalism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The inevitable outcome
"Appealing a dismissal is not the same thing as appealing a suit that's been dismissed." Any difference in those phrasings is imagined, not real.
Just like with other dismissals, plaintiffs appeal Anti-SLAPP dismissals all the time. The Ninth Circuit decided one such appeal, Simoni v. American Media, just last month. Do they win the appeal? Rarely. But does that stop them? Rarely.
On the post: If New FCC Boss Ajit Pai Is So 'Pro Consumer,' Why Does The Telecom Industry Need To Pay People To Say So?
There's Always More Than One Way
They are closing the divide, but by redefining "cutting edge" instead of encouraging better networks. Currently, the FCC website describes all of the following as levels of "broadband":
Just two years ago, the FCC defined "broadband" as only those connections of at least 25 Mbps. So yes, they are closing the divide—by pretending it doesn't exist.
On the post: Techdirt Survival Fund: I Support Journalism
Re: Re: Re: Re: The inevitable outcome
Thad, the AC is right. You can appeal the dismissal of a case. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) and a thousand other cases.
On the post: Techdirt Survival Fund: I Support Journalism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Strategy?
On second thought, we forgive you. But you're going to have to ask for forgiveness again:
"Perhaps I'm biased from my own brush with the court system": you do realize you still lost, right? You didn't beat the rap. TechDirt wants to win, not lose less badly. That's probably why they need our support more than anything (hey, Mike: "1A Victory Fund" is a bit more optimistic than "TechDirt Survival Fund").
You then say: "That is, the necessity of a vigorous defense is proportional to the weakness of one's case." A more accurate statement would be: "That is, the necessity of a vigorous defense is proportional to the funding of one's opponent." Ayyadurai has $750,000 in the bank, making Charles Harder the proverbial 600,000-pound gorilla (if you convert to British currency). TechDirt has to be serious in its response.
Finally, even if Floor64 wanted to proceed pro se, it almost assuredly cannot. While individuals are free to represent themselves, companies almost always are required to be represented in court by a lawyer.
On the post: Techdirt Survival Fund: I Support Journalism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Strategy?
First, the Wanderer is correct that ArkieGuy identifies part of the problem, though it really has more to do with "waiver" than "procedural posture". "Waiver" means that arguments not made at the proper time cannot be raised later, including on appeal. "Procedural posture" means which phase of the legal process a case is in (pleadings, discovery, dispositive motions, trial, appeal). Certain arguments only work in certain phases.
For example, OldMugwump proposes having a lawyer spend part of a two-page brief arguing, "Ayyadurai didn't invent email. See these references." Whether or not it is true, that is a completely wasted argument at this juncture because the Court is not determining the truth or falsity of any of the allegations. The Court only is deciding whether Ayyadurai has alleged sufficient facts that a jury plausibly could find in his favor. So in the motion to dismiss, TechDirt rightly argued that he failed to allege certain required facts and that other facts, even if proved, don't support his claim. If TechDirt wins the motion, Ayyadurai will have to fix the complaint. Maybe he can. Maybe he can't. If he can't, TechDirt got out with the lowest time and expense possible.
Second, OldMugwump also said: "Then shut up. Let the courts do their work." This is bad advice. Our system is an adversarial one. For the most part, the courts only decide the issues raised by the parties. They don't draft your briefs for you or tell you what arguments to make. If you do a bad job, it makes their job easy, granting judgment for the other party.
Third, Oldmugwump proposed arguing: "We want legal fees and damages for this baseless case". The American legal system generally requires each party to bear its own fees, absent a statute or contract to the contrary. That's why TechDirt's lawyers went to such lengths to show that California's Anti-SLAPP statute should apply to a case filed in Massachusetts. Try effectively explaining that to a Judge in OldMugwump's proposed two pages, after no more than four hours of research.
One final comment. As for whether this is an "all-hands-on-deck, red alert," frankly, TechDirt's response seems about right. Instead of generating a slapdash response from the cheapest lawyer on the block, TechDirt has managed to respond with two solid motions. Good lawyering doesn't come cheap.
On the post: Techdirt Survival Fund: I Support Journalism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Strategy?
Next >>