decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Private Prosecutions by the **AA | 154 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Private Prosecutions by the **AA
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 20 2012 @ 05:23 AM EDT
An unlicensed tradesman doing electrical wiring is firstly a matter
of public safety, and secondly a fraud on licensed electricians who
have paid the price to conform with the law.

But Mr Vickerman is the victim of a judge who believes that the
establishment (XXAA) doesn't go round prosecuting little people
without good reason. While Mr. V. may appear to deserve to win
on appeal, his demeanour during the trial, and his line of business
could put him on the back foot. I believe the British police have at
the least the right to move along someone standing on a street
corner handing out flyers telling people where to buy goods which
have a strong probability of being stolen; and more likely they
will invite him to assist them with their inquiries. Yes, in this case
they decided they couldn't afford the time to determine if the goods
were stolen or not. So the fact that the Crown Prosecution Service
chose not to prosecute should count in his favour. Pity he is unlikely
to afford the cost of a proper appeal.

Note also the XXAA went for Mr V. as he was a bird in the hand.
Going after all the actual infringing sites he fingered was too
much work for them, in spite of the CPS suggesting that's
what they should be doing.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )