If your cell phone is locked with a password or encryption, they cannot charge you with obstruction for refusing to unlock the cell phone or in giving them access.
The way the law currently works, law enforcement can only conduct an inventory of what you have in your possession, at the time of your arrest. Police officers do not have an unalienable right to search through your personal things without a reasonable right.
Since it's a cell phone, and if you have encrypted the phone or locked it with a password, you can refuse to comply because there is nothing on the contents of that cell phone that would endanger a police officer's life. What do they think you are going to do? Injure them with your cell phone?
However, as some Californian courts have ruled, if a Federal or District court judge orders you to provide the access key or provide access, you can be held in contempt of court for refusing to give an officer of the court (lawyers, district attorneys) access to that device.
These rulings by these judges that have been going on are eventually going to be overturned because these rulings go too far in abusing the rights of someone who has been detained by police officers. Law enforcement have restrictions to what they can and can't search. Even if the Cell Phone wasn't unlocked, any information that they would have discovered would be thrown out by the courts because the police would have failed to get a search warrant.
Put it this way, any defendant who found himself in this situation would have grounds for an appeal based on his fourth amendment rights against unwarranted searches and seizures.
He owns the patents and if someone infringes on those patents then they should pay up.
The whole idea of patents is to protect your idea, your intellectual property. Even if you don't use it or plan to implement it into a product, if someone violates that patent, it is your right to sue to recover damages.
You guys would be suing too if someone violated your patent.
I patented my balls so if anyone ever violates them I can sue them ...
Fact is, that it really doesn't matter whether he's a patent troll or not. He received his patents back in the 90's, which, according to Slashdot articles and Google searches, benefited Microsoft and Google.
Now that multiple companies are abusing his patents, without paying for the right to use those patents, everyone's saying he doesn't have a right to request compensation from the courts?
That's akin to saying that if I'm in my yard and the neighbor's dog broke free from his yard and came over iinto my property and bit me that I don't have the right to sue.
Believe what you want, but a patent is akin to property. If you want to use that "property" then you have to ask permission to use it. If you use that "property" without permission or without compensation then you accept the responsibility that comes from the illegal use of that "property."
The one thing that Paul Allen might have going for him is his connection to Microsoft and the fact is that there's a likely possibility that he's going to win.
Techdirt, don't you guys ever do research on your articles before you publish them? I'm a repeat visitor and I love your articles but this is one time where your writer forgot to do his or her homework.
First, the lawsuit was filed by the co-founder of Microsoft, Paul Allen, who is NOT a patent troll.
Second, he filed the lawsuit against "several" companies who are violating the same patents that Paul Allen owns. Aol, Apple, eBay, Facebook, Google, Netflix, Office Depot, OfficeMax, Staples, Yahoo and YouTube are all companies who are named in the lawsuit.
Third: The lawsuits involved:
-- U.S. Patent No. 6,263,507, for "Browser for Use in Navigating a Body of Information, With Particular Application to Browsing Information Represented By Audiovisual Data."
-- U.S. Patent No. 6,034,652, for "Attention Manager for Occupying the Peripheral Attention of a Person in the Vicinity of a Display Device."
-- U.S. Patent No. 6,788,314, for "Attention Manager for Occupying the Peripheral Attention of a Person in the Vicinity of a Display Device."
-- U.S. Patent No. 6,757,682, for "Alerting Users to Items of Current Interest."
The author of this article is an obnoxious blowhard. The University of Miami had every right to demand that their logo be removed from the DVD case because it would be like a "seal of approval" by the university over the release of the DVD.
Fact is, the University probably doesn't want to be associated with the DVD and the fact is that they probably didn't obtain the rights to use the logo or ask for approval to use the logo. You just cannot use someone's else's copyrighted logo without permission and this what they did.
I think you guys are confused over the First Amendment. While it's true that business owners have the right to refuse service to someone, they need a legit reason to do so. They just cannot refuse to do business with someone because they don't like the way they look, act.
The problem here is that the manager kicked them out because they wrote a bad review. So What? I suspect that the hotel as well as the manager may find themselves on the receiving end of a very large lawsuit.
Why is it that if a review is good, that they don't raise a stink but if that review is bad, they raise Holy Hell about it.
The Hotel Manager made a very serious error in judgment. Writing a bad review, even if it was this couple, is not grounds for kicking them out of the hotel. Any competent judge is going to look at the situation and find for the plaintiffs in this matter because not only is it not against the law, not only was tyhe hotel manager wrong is removing thewm from the property but that he neglected to refund their money nor did he have proof that they wrote the review.
If that were me, I'd seek out an attorney immediately, I'd contact the owner of the property and the owner of the hotel and also file complaints through them. I would contact anyone and everyone I could to make life a living hell for that manager and the property owner.
On the post: Another Court Says It's Okay For Police To Search Your Mobile Phone Without A Warrant
My Views
The way the law currently works, law enforcement can only conduct an inventory of what you have in your possession, at the time of your arrest. Police officers do not have an unalienable right to search through your personal things without a reasonable right.
Since it's a cell phone, and if you have encrypted the phone or locked it with a password, you can refuse to comply because there is nothing on the contents of that cell phone that would endanger a police officer's life. What do they think you are going to do? Injure them with your cell phone?
However, as some Californian courts have ruled, if a Federal or District court judge orders you to provide the access key or provide access, you can be held in contempt of court for refusing to give an officer of the court (lawyers, district attorneys) access to that device.
These rulings by these judges that have been going on are eventually going to be overturned because these rulings go too far in abusing the rights of someone who has been detained by police officers. Law enforcement have restrictions to what they can and can't search. Even if the Cell Phone wasn't unlocked, any information that they would have discovered would be thrown out by the courts because the police would have failed to get a search warrant.
Put it this way, any defendant who found himself in this situation would have grounds for an appeal based on his fourth amendment rights against unwarranted searches and seizures.
On the post: Paul Allen Files Amended Patent Lawsuit; Shows It's Even More Ridiculous Than We Originally Thought
The whole idea of patents is to protect your idea, your intellectual property. Even if you don't use it or plan to implement it into a product, if someone violates that patent, it is your right to sue to recover damages.
You guys would be suing too if someone violated your patent.
I patented my balls so if anyone ever violates them I can sue them ...
On the post: Class Action Fishing: Apple Sued Over Third Party User Tracking
Techdirt, Get Your Facts Straight
Now that multiple companies are abusing his patents, without paying for the right to use those patents, everyone's saying he doesn't have a right to request compensation from the courts?
That's akin to saying that if I'm in my yard and the neighbor's dog broke free from his yard and came over iinto my property and bit me that I don't have the right to sue.
Believe what you want, but a patent is akin to property. If you want to use that "property" then you have to ask permission to use it. If you use that "property" without permission or without compensation then you accept the responsibility that comes from the illegal use of that "property."
The one thing that Paul Allen might have going for him is his connection to Microsoft and the fact is that there's a likely possibility that he's going to win.
On the post: Class Action Fishing: Apple Sued Over Third Party User Tracking
Techdirt, Get Your Facts Straight
First, the lawsuit was filed by the co-founder of Microsoft, Paul Allen, who is NOT a patent troll.
Second, he filed the lawsuit against "several" companies who are violating the same patents that Paul Allen owns. Aol, Apple, eBay, Facebook, Google, Netflix, Office Depot, OfficeMax, Staples, Yahoo and YouTube are all companies who are named in the lawsuit.
Third: The lawsuits involved:
-- U.S. Patent No. 6,263,507, for "Browser for Use in Navigating a Body of Information, With Particular Application to Browsing Information Represented By Audiovisual Data."
-- U.S. Patent No. 6,034,652, for "Attention Manager for Occupying the Peripheral Attention of a Person in the Vicinity of a Display Device."
-- U.S. Patent No. 6,788,314, for "Attention Manager for Occupying the Peripheral Attention of a Person in the Vicinity of a Display Device."
-- U.S. Patent No. 6,757,682, for "Alerting Users to Items of Current Interest."
On the post: University Of Miami Demanding ESPN Documentary About University Of Miami Football Remove Its Logo
Fact is, the University probably doesn't want to be associated with the DVD and the fact is that they probably didn't obtain the rights to use the logo or ask for approval to use the logo. You just cannot use someone's else's copyrighted logo without permission and this what they did.
On the post: Couple Kicked Out Of Hotel After Manager Accuses Them Of Writing A Bad Review
The problem here is that the manager kicked them out because they wrote a bad review. So What? I suspect that the hotel as well as the manager may find themselves on the receiving end of a very large lawsuit.
Why is it that if a review is good, that they don't raise a stink but if that review is bad, they raise Holy Hell about it.
The Hotel Manager made a very serious error in judgment. Writing a bad review, even if it was this couple, is not grounds for kicking them out of the hotel. Any competent judge is going to look at the situation and find for the plaintiffs in this matter because not only is it not against the law, not only was tyhe hotel manager wrong is removing thewm from the property but that he neglected to refund their money nor did he have proof that they wrote the review.
If that were me, I'd seek out an attorney immediately, I'd contact the owner of the property and the owner of the hotel and also file complaints through them. I would contact anyone and everyone I could to make life a living hell for that manager and the property owner.
Next >>