Not only does he get to keep on being paid until he actually resigns, he retains his pension rights when he does? (I am presuming he receives enhanced pension rights as a former LEO. but am open to correction on this)
The problem here is that people are confusing the civil cases with the criminal (appeal) cases. The initial civil case ended up going so badly that the Post Office, realising just how badly their defense was going (it was being heard in several stages), tried to have the judge removed. The Court of Appeal took one look at that application to remove the judge and tore the Post Office apart. When the eventual judgment in the civil case did come out it was about the most damning judgment there could have been. For those who think I'm exaggerating I suggest they read it. Once that came out it was blatantly apparent that the criminal cases simply didn't stand up to scrutiny, and worse that the Post Office had failed to disclose the defects in the system when they knew they had to when prosecuting. There are serious questions being raised about the conduct of the Post Office's lawyers who conducted the prosecutions (the Post Office gets to carry out its own prosecutions), let alone senior management of whom some are still in management positions today, if not in the Post Office then elsewhere. However, one or two are beginning to understand that companies don't want to be associated with them anymore and resignations are beginning to appear. (Not necessarily entirely voluntary)
Oh, and apologetic? Yeah right... want to see what they offer by way of compensation? Like the civil case it'll likely be minimal at best
Seems to me that the fastest way of stopping that particular nonsense is to invite the courts to operate on the principle of "contra proferentem" i.e. if the police can't / won't show what the messages were then invite the court to draw an adverse inference from that (that the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording. Yes, I know it really applies to contract law, but why not here as well?)
This pretty much sums up the current UK government, all talk about how cutting edge and forward looking they are. So much so that words like "groovy" and "man" are thought to be "with it"...
In reality, a great deal of lazy rhetoric and grandstanding, with little to no real substance. The word "pitiful" has been applied to them, only after careful consideration to have been replaced by the word "abysmal".
‘the name Tay, as I’m sure you must know, is closely associated with our client.’
Huh? Try that claim in Scotland and the laughter would be riniging in your ears....
Beautiful Railway Bridge of the Silv’ry Tay!
Alas! I am very sorry to say
That ninety lives have been taken away
On the last Sabbath day of 1879,
Which will be remember’d for a very long time.
There seems to be rather more to this story than is being presented at first sight. If you read these accounts then, from some of the details given, there's a suggestion that he is rather less the "Jack The Lad" he makes himself out to be...
The thing that intrigues me is that *someone* is making conscious decisions not to release reports, reports that were obtained at substantial (pubic) expense. Perhaps he/she/they should be named and asked to provide a (detailed) explanation why they decided to effectively throw those monies away.... and under what authority they did so?
I actually looked up the trademark and the description of the class of trademark applies to paper materials, specifically "Class (016) - Paper, cardboard and goods made from these materials, not included in other classes; printed matter; bookbinding material; photographs; stationery; adhesives for stationery or household purposes; artists' materials; paint brushes; typewriters and office requisites (except furniture); instructional and teaching material (except apparatus); plastic materials for packaging (not included in other classes); printers' type; printing blocks."
Does anyone know if that therefore applies to this case, an electronic communication?
An interesting point that seems to have been missed (or rather, the applicants are keeping quiet about because they know full well what could well be coming) is that overreach on an Anton Piller Order is a serious, and I do mean *serious*, breach of professional ethics/conduct on the part of the lawyers(s) who were overseeing the execution of the Order. Anton Piller Orders normally contain such a provision that the lawyers attend to prevent such overreach occurring and if that's the case here.... Such professional misconduct can form part of a wholly separate complaint to their professional body, irrespective of the court proceedings. I've seen lawyers face being struck off for such behaviour (I'm based in the UK). If Lackman feels so minded he can raise that with the lawyers professional body as a separate issue.
A question that no-one seems to have asked (I may have missed the answer). Just where did the drugs actually come from? I mean by that - where did the police officers *originally* acquire the drugs?
Interesting little throwaway comment in one of the articles that "nobody charged him criminally until the Feds came along..." ( http://www.lisa-legalinfo.com/ ). Certainly there doesn't appear to be any obvious reason for the FBI to become involved, unless perhaps someone locally wasn't doing their duty in prosecuting?
You definitely have my sympathy. I was sued in the past, by a person who made utterly outrageous and very serious allegations about me professionally. The intention was not just to try and silence me but to destroy my professional reputation. They were wholly unfounded and, happily, I was able to prove they were exactly that. I was fortunate, I *am* a lawyer in civil litigation so the costs weren't a worry to me and I knew exactly what steps to take, but it made me appreciate just how stressful it must be for someone who feels they've had control of their lives taken away from them.
Why not allow the presumption of the validity of a patent once granted to continue BUT allow anyone to provide a challenge to that patent i.e. prior art by a. first providing *full* details of the ground(s) for the challenge to the patent holder, then b. giving them the opportunity of deciding whether or not to oppose that challenge?
The kicker would be that if the patent holder didn't oppose the challenge the patent would be automatically invalidated. If they did oppose it then, once the issue of whether or not the patent was valid or not was determined on the basis of the challenge as originally put forward, (in other words, without allowing the challenger to add more material later once the formal challenge is made to the court / patent office) the loser would be liable to pay the other party's costs.
Haven't they missed the point? They've found *exactly* the target audience they were aiming at... They couldn't have done better no matter how hard they tried. There are marketing executives weeping into their G&Ts even as they learn the news
The glory of it all is that when the "document" was submitted to Google then the sender would have (presumably) had to give their contact details... I have a feeling someone's going to be clearing their diary of appointments for a while very soon.
What utter drivel. I purchased a second hand car a couple of years ago. For the first year I had nothing but problems with it and, sure enough, the car dealership failed to fix it. I finally got it fixed at another garage who quickly found the fault (which the dealership failed to locate, despite repeated claims from them that "this time we've definitely found it"), fixed it AND fixed the wireless keyfob that had mysteriously stopped working after the dealer's second attempt at repairs ("it was like that when you gave us it") for a fraction of what I'd paid the dealer. Turns out that particular dealership had a truly appalling reputation for botched repairs, but what did they care? They had a captive market so why bother to improve?
I suspect the real fear isn't about releasing the IP into the public domain, rather that it's being used as collateral for funding for another company / someone else. Should Faraday turn out to be a success then suddenly the Cayman company will turn round to enforce those patents against them i.e. heavy licensing fees. It's a very useful tool to manipulate profits and losses however you want to, and the suspicion seems to be that a Cayman registered company will mysteriously be the only one to end up with any profits, one way or another, while Faraday will have little to show for their work, and also be tied in to using those patents / IP.
Hmmm
Not only does he get to keep on being paid until he actually resigns, he retains his pension rights when he does? (I am presuming he receives enhanced pension rights as a former LEO. but am open to correction on this)
(untitled comment)
The problem here is that people are confusing the civil cases with the criminal (appeal) cases. The initial civil case ended up going so badly that the Post Office, realising just how badly their defense was going (it was being heard in several stages), tried to have the judge removed. The Court of Appeal took one look at that application to remove the judge and tore the Post Office apart. When the eventual judgment in the civil case did come out it was about the most damning judgment there could have been. For those who think I'm exaggerating I suggest they read it. Once that came out it was blatantly apparent that the criminal cases simply didn't stand up to scrutiny, and worse that the Post Office had failed to disclose the defects in the system when they knew they had to when prosecuting. There are serious questions being raised about the conduct of the Post Office's lawyers who conducted the prosecutions (the Post Office gets to carry out its own prosecutions), let alone senior management of whom some are still in management positions today, if not in the Post Office then elsewhere. However, one or two are beginning to understand that companies don't want to be associated with them anymore and resignations are beginning to appear. (Not necessarily entirely voluntary)
Oh, and apologetic? Yeah right... want to see what they offer by way of compensation? Like the civil case it'll likely be minimal at best
(untitled comment)
Seems to me that the fastest way of stopping that particular nonsense is to invite the courts to operate on the principle of "contra proferentem" i.e. if the police can't / won't show what the messages were then invite the court to draw an adverse inference from that (that the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording. Yes, I know it really applies to contract law, but why not here as well?)
And we are all surprised?
This pretty much sums up the current UK government, all talk about how cutting edge and forward looking they are. So much so that words like "groovy" and "man" are thought to be "with it"...
In reality, a great deal of lazy rhetoric and grandstanding, with little to no real substance. The word "pitiful" has been applied to them, only after careful consideration to have been replaced by the word "abysmal".
With apologies to William McGonagall...
‘the name Tay, as I’m sure you must know, is closely associated with our client.’
Huh? Try that claim in Scotland and the laughter would be riniging in your ears....
Beautiful Railway Bridge of the Silv’ry Tay!
Alas! I am very sorry to say
That ninety lives have been taken away
On the last Sabbath day of 1879,
Which will be remember’d for a very long time.
Re: Is it communicable?
(untitled comment)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cri me/pug-nazi-salute-youtube-video-owner-guilty-hate-crime-mark-meechan-lanarkshire-a8265301.html
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
"Class (016) - Paper, cardboard and goods made from these materials, not included in other classes; printed matter; bookbinding material; photographs; stationery; adhesives for stationery or household purposes; artists' materials; paint brushes; typewriters and office requisites (except furniture); instructional and teaching material (except apparatus); plastic materials for packaging (not included in other classes); printers' type; printing blocks."
Does anyone know if that therefore applies to this case, an electronic communication?
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
a. first providing *full* details of the ground(s) for the challenge to the patent holder, then
b. giving them the opportunity of deciding whether or not to oppose that challenge?
The kicker would be that if the patent holder didn't oppose the challenge the patent would be automatically invalidated. If they did oppose it then, once the issue of whether or not the patent was valid or not was determined on the basis of the challenge as originally put forward, (in other words, without allowing the challenger to add more material later once the formal challenge is made to the court / patent office) the loser would be liable to pay the other party's costs.
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
Re: Re: It seems like Trump has inherited a government full of people that are willing to work against him and his Party
(untitled comment)
More comments from Retsibsi >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Retsibsi.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt