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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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
Possible Alternate Link for " House Will Review CFAA ..." | 128 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Unauthorized unlocking of smartphones becomes illegal Saturday
Authored by: JamesK on Friday, January 25 2013 @ 05:10 PM EST
I can understand the reason for locking a subsidized phone, as the carriers are
entitled to recovery the subsidy. But what happens when that is paid for?
Perhaps unlocking should be mandatory at the end of the initial contract period,
so customers are free to take their paid for phone elsewhere. In Canada,
carriers are required to unlock phones on request and for a service fee.

---
The following program contains immature subject matter.
Viewer discretion is advised.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Possible Alternate Link for " House Will Review CFAA ..."
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 26 2013 @ 04:18 AM EST
I don't know how the content of this story compares to the subscription only Law360 article but it's dated the day the Law360 article says Bob Goodlatte made his announcement.
He [Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), House Judiciary Chairman] also added that the committee "may" hold hearings on the CFAA and Lofgren's draft measure, but emphasized that "no decisions have been made yet."

http://thehi ll.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/278593 goodlatte-house-judiciary-to-look at-computer-hacking-law-in-wake-of-swartz-death

(Link worked in preview. If it is broken, replace the two spaces in the text version of the URL with hyphens. Spaces added after "278593" and "look" so line could break.)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad - Petitioner's Brief
Authored by: Gringo_ on Saturday, January 26 2013 @ 07:22 AM EST

What an incredible read! Such a wonderfully composed brief. So eminently readable any astute high school graduate could easily follow the arguments presented. It defies logic that so many in the judiciary, and even the US Government promoted the notion that our genes can be patented.

Aside from thoughts on the merits of the petitioners brief, all through reading it I saw little arguments that taken in isolation could be copied and pasted into a brief arguing against software patents. If only we could put together a brief like that directed towards overturning these patents on mathematics. Surely computer science isn't inherently more complicated than molecular biology! I would suggest using that brief as a template and a "How To" manual to prepare a similar brief against software patents.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Microsoft: PC makers fault
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 26 2013 @ 08:04 AM EST
Seems that once the boot is lifted off their necks, the manufacturers are less
inclined to just follow Microsoft's lead.

Couldn't happen to a more deserving company...

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

What the French war on anti-Semitic tweets says about hate speech in France
Authored by: JamesK on Saturday, January 26 2013 @ 05:28 PM EST
"The case is yet another example of U.S.-based social media services
butting up against European hate speech laws."

Foreign companies have long found themselves subject to U.S. laws for activities
occurring outside of the U.S.. For example, back in the '60s some Canadian
companies had been punished for doing business with Cuba, even though it was not
in violation of Canadian law. More recently is the U.S. seizing domain names of
off shore sites that the U.S. has determined violate U.S. laws, regardless of
the fact that the operation is entirely legal in the country where they reside.
The U.S. has a long history on forcing its laws on things that are outside of
it's jurisdiction. Well, what goes around...

---
The following program contains immature subject matter.
Viewer discretion is advised.

[ 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 )