Comments on: Backwards Reasoning on Copyright Law

By: tramadol

tramadol — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 02:34:23 +0000

81e31de21f46 Hi http://www.abc-acupuncture.com/baxqorav tramadol

By: tramadol

tramadol — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 02:34:23 +0000

81e31de21f46 Hi http://www.abc-acupuncture.com/baxqorav tramadol

By: shorturl

shorturl — Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:28:48 +0000

db9826f9e5eb Hello! http:/0zu.tw/ shorturl

By: shorturl

shorturl — Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:28:48 +0000

db9826f9e5eb Hello! http:/0zu.tw/ shorturl

By: MikeT

MikeT — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:55:19 +0000

This is all too true. Look at Scalia's "logic" about holding the police accountable. According to him, the laws against them are abled to be loosened just because in his mind, the police are more professional today. No transcendental principles that last between generations and eras. Just one Justice Scalia's opinion on the State of Law Enforcement.

But then, the rule of law is all but dead in America as it is.

By: MikeT

MikeT — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:55:19 +0000

But then, the rule of law is all but dead in America as it is.

By: Tim Lee

Tim Lee — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:39:41 +0000

My point was that judges sometimes treat defendants differently based on perceived arrogance, not that I think that’s a good thing.

By: Noel Le

Noel Le — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:23:17 +0000

A court will not blindly apply a legal copyright test in a way that contradicts copyright’s underlying principles, or quash innovation-competiton when they clearly are at stake.

I wouldn’t go so far as to give Google a carte blanche though, a judge can still side against it if he/she thinks Google has not sought alternatives or made efforts towards legal compliance.

Hey Tim, how about a post on the top 5 most arrogant litigants in the tech sector…