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
Proposed Search Fee Threatens Access to Public Court Records | 179 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Proposed Search Fee Threatens Access to Public Court Records
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 15 2013 @ 02:52 PM EDT
The friendly article is here.

I haven't read the proposed bill, but I may have to do so, because I'm extremely interested in seeing how its writers have defined "journalist". Has anyone looked this up yet?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The DMCA conference streaming seems to use Silverlight
Authored by: Tkilgore on Friday, March 15 2013 @ 07:42 PM EDT
At least, I could not get anything to work, and there was a prominently
displayed request for me to download Silverlight.

It seems that some of the most interested parties can not see anything from that
conference. Surely the hosts of a conference at Santa Clara University Law
School must be aware that there are serious issues in regard to Silverlight? At
the very latest, the issue came up during the Conference on Software Patents
back in November.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Surprise: Register Of Copyrights Expected To Call For Reduction In Copyright Term
Authored by: UncleVom on Friday, March 15 2013 @ 09:31 PM EDT
The lack of coverage is what happens when the news media is largely owned by
parties who want to either maintain the status quo or increase the term of
copyright.

Beware vertical integration it wants to kill freedom of the press/media.

Hooray for what are relatively niche publications on the internet that give you
more choice, can gather eyes and help to initiate change.






[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

from Wired: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 15 2013 @ 10:09 PM EDT
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/03/nsl-found-unconstitutional/

Finally!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

On-topic suggestion for newspick: firsttodisclose.org
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 15 2013 @ 10:40 PM EDT
This was posted today on Dave Farber's "Interesting-People" list. It sounds like something the Groklaw community might have a great deal of interest in.

(I hope including the whole item here isn't a violation of anything... I'm erring on the side of completeness.)

From: Jonathan Askin <jonathan.askin@brooklaw.edu>
Subject: FirstToDisclose.org
Date: March 15, 2013 5:26:31 PM EDT
To: "Dave Farber (dave@farber.net)"

Dave,

I wanted to let your community know that a team of Brooklyn Law Incubator & Policy (BLIP) students and I are launchingwww.firsttodisclose.org today (in advance of America's move tomorrow, March 16, from a “first-to-invent” to a “first-to-file” patent regime). I thought you might find it blog-worthy or otherwise transmit to your community. I’ve posted the announcement to thewww.BLIPclinic.org blog.

Our objective is to provide a platform for small innovators to post their ideas for the world before a well-heeled enterprise can file a patent on the same idea with the Patent Office. One consequence of the move from “first to invent” to “first to file” is that it will likely be difficult for small inventors to beat larger enterprises to the patent office with their innovations. First-to-Disclose is an effort to counterbalance the burden imposed on small inventors. Info is available at www.firsttodisclose.org

We’ll likely get some minor attention from the patent law community, but I hope the positive ramifications will resonate for years.

Anyway, I thought you and those in your orbit would dig it.

All my best, Jonathan


Prof. Jonathan Askin
Founder/Director
Brooklyn Law Incubator & Policy Clinic
Brooklyn Law School
One Boerum Place
Third Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201

IMPORTANT - PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail communication and any attached documentation may be privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure and is intended only for the use of the designated recipient(s). If the reader or recipient of this communication is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent of the intended recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify me by return e-mail and promptly delete the original electronic email communication and any attached documentation. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient is not a waiver of any attorney-client or work-product privilege.

IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (a) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (b) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Good - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 16 2013 @ 01:12 PM EDT
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 )