nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Nov 19, 2017 0:08:52 GMT
sk43999 says "Too late." Unfortunately if some courts choose not to follow their own rules ... what are you going to do about it .... sue them? But hopefully IBM can point out the tardiness and have a good case that SCOG have used up more judicial good will than likely exists in the universe, and should be stopped.
We need a legal stake through their heart to keep this zombie of a case from going on and on and on and on and ...
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Oct 30, 2017 21:20:27 GMT
Mixed feelings. If IBM dropped their misappropriation claim, then the whole thing would be over. That might be nice. But SCOG really did do wrong and BSF should never have agreed to handle anything and everything with just payment up front. If IBM continues to press the misappropriation claim, then BSF will have to defend it. And it would be kind of nice to see someone on the wrong side of this suffer just a little. Even if it is only BSF. And it would be nice to have SCOG lose on every single thing.
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Oct 13, 2017 13:42:31 GMT
Not certain if the content to this following article is same as the one mentioned previously by swmech and grumbled about by tiger99 ... www.zdnet.com/article/suse-linux-at-25/For all I know it might have been the source for the deathrattlesports.com article
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Oct 12, 2017 16:57:42 GMT
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Aug 16, 2017 21:29:51 GMT
This is SCO we're talking about. Since when has anything legal with SCO been 'normal' or 'ordinary'?
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Jun 9, 2017 14:03:29 GMT
And as usual, they (Gene Quin and most patent attorneys) are wrong and are mainly thinking of their own self-interest and not much else.
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Apr 11, 2017 13:52:53 GMT
Someone please correct me if I am wrong. As I recall, while the court reporter always keeps track of proceedings, unless there is some reason for it, the encoded version is not rendered into a readable transcript. Generally if someone pays for it being the main reason. But if someone does pay for it, then anyone can get a copy of it once it is available. Naturally this can vary from court to court. Your mileage may vary, standard disclaimers apply.
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Mar 7, 2017 17:17:48 GMT
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Mar 3, 2017 21:15:05 GMT
Here is another article which makes the point that Amazon isn't actually fighting for the little guy ... AMAZON ISN’T FIGHTING FOR YOUAnd another thing that occurs to me ... How about the first amendment rights of the deceased (possibly murdered) individual. The last things they said (which might incriminate the Echo owner) may be recorded. Without at least a judge listening to it (and possibly some audio analysis expert witnesses), we may never know. By refusing to comply with a properly issued search warrant, Amazon could be depriving the deceased of THEIR first amendment rights. Considering that the deceased has no recourse at this point, I would say protecting their first amendment rights takes precedence over protecting any real or imagined first amendment rights of those not deceased.
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Mar 3, 2017 15:38:15 GMT
Or you could just read Amazons 16 page motion asking to quash that I posted above.
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Mar 2, 2017 21:47:48 GMT
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Mar 2, 2017 21:18:06 GMT
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Mar 2, 2017 20:57:10 GMT
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Mar 2, 2017 18:22:40 GMT
And just what part does the first amendment play in this? The point I have tried to make is that I think it not appropriate for Amazon to bring up the first amendment as the reason for their refusal to comply. I am not claiming that this evidence should be admissible or should not be.
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Feb 28, 2017 18:10:13 GMT
I would expect all the same rules as apply to other bits of evidence to apply to this as well. I know of no situation where the first amendment would prevent some evidence that is otherwise admissible, from being used. Amazon seems to think differently, and that is what I object to. I am not saying this should or shouldn't be used, should or shouldn't be admissible.
What I am saying is that the first amendment should play no part whatsoever in questions of admissibility for this evidence. If Amazon is refusing to comply with a search warrant by raising this inappropriate first amendment issue, then I think they are very wrong.
Here is the first amendment ...
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
How does Amazon twist this to in any way apply to their refusing to respond to an otherwise on-target search warrant?
(I am assuming there is a search warrant. Simply because if there isn't, all Amazon need do is say, "No search warrant, no data." and we would not be having this exchange.)
Whether or not this is admissible, is not for Amazon to determine.
|
|