HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: DDFr@Midway.UChicago.Edu (David Friedman)
Subject: Re: Intellectual Property Rights & Source Disks
Followup-To: misc.legal.computing
Organization: University of Chicago Law School
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:05:12 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.133745@cs.bham.ac.uk>, jss@cs.bham.ac.uk (John
Swapp-Sweet) wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Many books are published that contain source code listings, often they have a
> disk with them containing the source code.  Sometimes there are listings but no
> disk, the disk, it seems can be purchased for about US$40.
> 
> Given that one already has the book, and therefore the code, is one in breach of
> an intellectual copyright if one makes a copy of somebody elses disk?  Or would
> one be in breach if one placed the code on an FTP site?
> 

The case you should look at is Micro-Sparc, Inc. v. Amtype Corp., 592 F.
Supp. 33 (D. Mass. 1984). Micro-Sparc published a magazine (Nibble) which
included listings of source code, and also sold a diskette with the
programs on it. Amtype offered to Micro-Sparc subscribers the service of
typing in the their programs. The subscribers, who had the right to type in
the programs themselves, assigned that right to Amtype. Amtype typed in the
programs (once for all customers) and sent the disk back, I assume for a
price lower than Micro-Sparc was charging. 

Micro-Sparc sued on grounds of copyright infringement, and got summary
judgement in its favor; Amtype was enjoined from what it had been doing.
Whether the same result would apply in your case I do not know; you should
probably read the case if you want more information. In particular, I do
not know whether the result under U.K. law (I assume from your address that
you are in the UK) would be different; the case I am citing was based on
the specifics of the U.S. copyright act.

David Friedman
Olin Fellow in Law and Economics
University of Chicago Law School
(312) 702-9589
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Shouting "Movie!" at a Fire Station (Schenck v US)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 02:59:24 GMT

In article <bob1.727643881@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>Excuse a legal neophyte, but I was under the impression that our
>civil code, much like the English code, is based on, or rather,
>makes extensive use of precedent. If this is so, then *any*
>decision by the SC could and would be used as a precedent. This
>is not exactly making law so much as interpreting it, but if
>the interpretation is radically different than any that had
>gone before, it is at least giving an old law a new twist.

Essentially, that's what I'm objecting to: Interpertations
that are radically different from the original law. The
Court is certainly within it's power to clear up vague,
unclear portions of the law, and their decisions on the subject
are cited in future cases. However, I think authority is 
limited to interpertations consistant with the original text
and intent of the law. (I.e. I don't think it's reasonable to
read, "Congress has the power... to regulate Commerce... among
the several States" as saying "Congress has the power to prohibit
discrimination in local businesses." The later may be desirable,
but I certainly wouldn't call it a reasonable interpertation
of the commerce clause.)

                                             Frank Crary
                                             CU Boulder
From: jmuth@pyrps5.eng.pyramid.com (John Muth)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Medicaid confiscating real estate...
Date: 20 Jan 93 20:04:53 GMT
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corporation, Mountain View

In article <C14Ay3.3G6@vcd.hp.com> johne@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE (John Eaton) writes:
>John Muth (jmuth@pyrps5.eng.pyramid.com) wrote:
>: 
>: Medicaid has the right to the property because it is a program to provide
>: medical care to the poor, not a program to protect your inheiritence. 
>:-------------------
>Medicaid is funded through a 1.45% tax on earned income up to some limit
>in excess of $100K per year. That is a limit that few people would call
>"poor". The goverment has decided that people who make more than that 
>limit should not have to pay anymore tax because they will be able to fund
>their retirement themselves.
>
>The problem is that the goverment wants it both ways. They set the limit
>too high so that a lot of high income people will have to pay the tax. But
>these same people will have enough assets in retirement to pay for everything
>they need.  They should lower the income limits for FICA taxes and stop
>paying retirement benefits to those who exceed the limits.
>
>John Eaton
>!hp-vcd!johne

John,

FYI, Medi*CARE* is paid for with the 1.45% payroll tax and provides care to
the elderly. Medi*CAID* (called MediCal in California) is paid
for out of the general fund and provides care for the poor. While most 
eldery health care is paid by Medicare, nursing home care is paid for by 
Medicaid.

John Muth
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Subject: Re: executive orders
Organization: The Devil's Advocate
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 18:54:23 GMT


>In article <1993Jan24.060929.11298@athena.mit.edu> jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) writes:
>>	1. "ethics rules" for his advisors prohibiting them from lobbying
>>	for 5 years after leaving government.
>>
>>When corporations try this, the courts don't allow it.

"Covenants not to compete" are quite commonly given by key employees
of companies which would be seriously damaged if said employee
went to work for a competitor.  Courts generally limit the scope of
such covenants geographically and temporaly, so that they are
reasonably related to the legitimate goal of preventing  such
employees from taking advantage of their former employer.



  Does Clinton have
>>the authority to indefinitely restrict former employees from working in a
>>certain field?  (He said 5 years, but how is that legally different from 50
>>years, or forever?)  What's the punishment for violating this rule?

If the employees sign an agreement, presumably its an enforceable
contract.

-- 
larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com) 
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner

Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Shouting "Movie!" at a Fire Station (Schenck v US)
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:18:01 GMT

In <1993Jan20.061301.2539@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

>In article <C14LK2.MAK@panix.com> lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) writes:
>>>It's really a question of theory and practice: In theory, judges 
>>>have no authority to, and should never, make law.

Excuse a legal neophyte, but I was under the impression that our
civil code, much like the English code, is based on, or rather,
makes extensive use of precedent. If this is so, then *any*
decision by the SC could and would be used as a precedent. This
is not exactly making law so much as interpreting it, but if
the interpretation is radically different than any that had
gone before, it is at least giving an old law a new twist.

Have I been watching too much Perry Mason? 

>>Where did you get this idea?  Judge's have been making law at least
>>since the creation of the first Courts of Equity in the middle ages.
>>The vast majority of rules concerning contracts and torts (i.e. "the
>>common law") are made by judges, and always have been.

>From a document drafted in 1787, called the United States Constitution...
>It vests all (federal) legislative powers in Congress, and implicitly
>rejects the common law principle of law making from the bench, in 
>favor of a "rule of law." 

>>There is nothing more fundamental to the Anglo-American legal
>>tradition than that judges help the law to evolve to deal with novel
>>situations and acheive substantial justice.

>I'm afraid the federal courts took a different view (usually) from
>1788 to around 1937 (although they still don't usually admitt
>they are making the laws they think will "achieve substantial
>justice, i.e. the ones that suit their political biases; prefering
>instead to pretend these are just "interpertations"...)

>                                                       Frank Crary
>                                                       CU Boulder
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr)
Subject: executive orders
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 06:09:29 GMT


I have some questions about the power of the President to issue executive
orders.  Clinton has issued 2 executive orders, and is expected to issue one
more in the near future.  My question is: what is his legal authority for
these orders?

	1. "ethics rules" for his advisors prohibiting them from lobbying
	for 5 years after leaving government.

When corporations try this, the courts don't allow it.  Does Clinton have
the authority to indefinitely restrict former employees from working in a
certain field?  (He said 5 years, but how is that legally different from 50
years, or forever?)  What's the punishment for violating this rule?

	2. reversal of ban on abortion counseling at federally funded clinics

I thought this was a law, not a regulation?  Or is there a law that
authorizes but does not require such restrictions?  I know Congress tried to
reverse the ban but failed.

	3. end to ban on gays in military

The reports on this issue that I heard last year said this would require an
act of Congress.  Would a Clinton order preventing enforcement of the
anti-gay regulations be illegal?


I'm not looking for a discussion of whether any of these actions are good or
bad, but I have no idea where Clinton gets the legal authority for them.

--
    John Carr (jfc@athena.mit.edu)
From: mab@wdl39.wdl.loral.com (Mark A Biggar)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fully Informed Jury Amendment
Date: 26 Jan 93 23:44:13 GMT
Organization: Loral Western Development Labs

In article <MOORE.93Jan24145352@defmacro.cs.utah.edu> moore@cs.utah.edu (Tim Moore) writes:
>A side question: where is the principle that the State can't appeal an
>acquittal stated, in the Constitution or somewhere else?

Amendment 5: ...; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence
to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;...

This phrase of the 5th is usually used to justify not appealing acquittals.

--
Mark Biggar
mab@wdl1.wdl.loral.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: moore@cs.utah.edu (Tim Moore)
Subject: Fully Informed Jury Amendment
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Date: 24 Jan 93 14:53:52

This weekend I picked up some literature from the Fully Informed Jury
Asscocation at the Salt Lake City Survival Expo (actually, I was
helping out at the Salt Lake City Gift Show next door and wandered in.
Strange bedfellows...) 

What's the net's legal opinion about the right of juries to judge the
law, as well as the facts, of a case?

One argument in the FIJA literature is that juries already have the
power to judge law because "no one can tell the jury what verdict it
must reach, nor restrict what goes on in jury-room deliberations, nor
punish jurors for the verdict they bring in, nor demand to know why
they reached that verdict."  Therefore, the argument continues, juries
have the right to judge law because "...one gets right down to it,
there is precious little difference, except in academic legal
discourse, between a right and a power."  Hmm, I'm a bit skeptical of
that one; it seems to imply that juries have the right to decide
whatever they want, regardless of the facts of the case.  Maybe some
net legal eagle could explain. 

A side question: where is the principle that the State can't appeal an
acquittal stated, in the Constitution or somewhere else?

--
Tim Moore                    moore@cs.utah.edu {bellcore,hplabs}!utah-cs!moore
"Wind in my hair - Shifting and drifting - Mechanical music - Adrenaline surge"
	- Rush
From: PGSMITH@UCSVAX.UCS.UMASS.EDU ( )
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Probate
Date: 22 Jan 1993 00:19:08 GMT
Organization: UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS - AMHERST
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: phobos.ucs.umass.edu
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

     Can anyone give me a quick pointer to Net information on probate
 and possibility of avoiding.   Thanks   pgsmith@ucsvax.ucs.umass.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show
From: bodoh@cae.wisc.edu (Daniel Bohoh)
Subject: Re: Still Light On History????
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Date: 23 Jan 93 20:22:16 CST

In article <1993Jan23.200728.10342@doug.cae.wisc.edu> bodoh@cae.wisc.edu (Daniel Bohoh) writes:
>The inconsistency is between these two statements:
>"Abortion should be legal because woman will suffer less from illegal
>abortions"
>and
>"Abortion should be legal because it is fundamental right protected by
>the 14th Amm"

[See my previous post]

>The first statement can change as circumstances change, since it
>depends only on the utility.  The second statement can never change.
>There is the inconsistency: relativism vs. absolutes.  What happens
>when the first statmenet changes?  Which argument does the pro-choice
>side believe?  (For example, the first statement could change 
>if we gave the equivalent of "clean needles" to those doctors...)

Actually, I just realized that this is very topical:  RU486 could
easily be that clean needle.  We don't even have to give it to doctors.
If you really truly believe in the first statement, isn't it OK if
abortion is illegal (like drugs) but you provide free RU486 pills?   
And if you really truly believe in the second statement, abortion must
remain legal, right?
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr)
Subject: Re: executive orders
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 12:22:28 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.071407.2582@midway.uchicago.edu>
	thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>>	3. end to ban on gays in military

>>The reports on this issue that I heard last year said this would require an
>>act of Congress.  Would a Clinton order preventing enforcement of the
>>anti-gay regulations be illegal?

>Truman desegregated the military with an EO.

Was the segregation based on law or custom?  i.e. did Congress say "the
miltary shall be segregated" and Truman say "I don't care, I'm desegregating
anyway"?  or had the military always been segregated and nobody thought to
write a law requiring segregation?

If Truman violated the law by desgregating, or Clinton by unilaterally
ordering the homosexual ban removed, would anyone would have standing to sue
for enforcement of the law?


I had CNN on my TV last night, but wasn't paying much attention.  It sounded
like someone said (s)he expected the courts to order the homosexual ban
lifted within a few years if neither Clinton nor Congress took action first.
Is this likely (1) with the current court (2) with a court containing 2-3
Clinton nominees able to survive the Senate Judiciary Committee?


--
    John Carr (jfc@athena.mit.edu)
Xref: sparky misc.legal:23161 alt.censorship:10087 alt.society.civil-liberty:7495 alt.politics.usa.constitution:1543
From: dpollard@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dennis B Pollard)
Subject: Re: Must states accept other states drivers licenses
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 23:54:36 GMT

I may not be able to help much; however,

Upon changing one's residence to a new state, the individual is expected to 
apply for a driver's license in the new state.  Each state has its own time 
limitations for so applying.

The officer did have the "right" to ask you to identify yourself, which may 
include asking you to verify that the address on your license is in fact your 
address.  In Pennsylvania the officer/trooper will match driver's license with 
insurance card with operator's card.  Any discrepancy may result is a HUGH 
fine.

Check the CA driver's handbook, it should provide one with the time limitation 
for getting a new license.

Dennis P.
From: scott@bbx.basis.com (Scott Amspoker)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: executive orders
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:38:56 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: BASIS International, Ltd., Albuquerque NM USA

In article <C1DGIn.71K@panix.com> lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) writes:
>
>"Covenants not to compete" are quite commonly given by key employees
>of companies which would be seriously damaged if said employee
>went to work for a competitor.  Courts generally limit the scope of
>such covenants geographically and temporaly, so that they are
>reasonably related to the legitimate goal of preventing  such
>employees from taking advantage of their former employer.

I should add the such covenants normally (and should) provide something
in return to the employee such as a recruitment bonus or golden handcuffs.
Mere employment is not necessarily regarded as due consideration for
a promise to limit one's livelihood at a later point in time.

-- 
Scott Amspoker                       |    
Basis International, Albuquerque, NM |  Too bad ignorance isn't really
                                     |  bliss.  Then it could be outlawed.
scott@bbx.basis.com                  |
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Shouting "Movie!" at a Fire Station (Schenck v US)
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 12:23:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.011520.9966@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

>No, I don't think the a judge should uses the results a ruling will
>have, as part of the reasoning behind an interpertation. That would
>be activism (to base the ruling on a desired result). However, that
>doesn't preclude considering the effects of an interpertation 
>_after_ arriving at an interpertation. You have been debating a
>good example of this receintly: Justice Homes "Clear and Present
>Danger" test for freedom of speach. When he first proposed
>it, it appeared to adaquately protect free expression of ideas.
>After looking at it's effects, however, the Court deceided that
>the test was not, in fact, a good interpertation since it didn't
>effectively protect the right, and adopted a different test.
>Both tests were not "activist" interpertations. They were an
>effort to simply interpert the Constitution without basing
>the resoning on some desired result. However, a consideration of
>the results helped the Court choose one over the other.

This passage contradicts itself.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost 
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: ripng@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (PAUL NG)
Subject: Arkansas Creationism v Evolution case 
Organization: Halls of Residence, Monash University 
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 05:33:28 GMT

To misc.legal:
	I read on another board that there is a single judge decision from 
the early 1980s (1981, perhaps) in Arkansas on the issue of Creation 
"science" and Evolution.  The citation was lacking.  I tried to obtain the 
citation via that board but the person who posted it has not replied and 
the original post has been deleted.  Can anyone help?

Paul.
From: jlpicard@austin.ibm.com (Craig Becker)
Subject: Re: privacy question
Originator: jlpicard@woofer.austin.ibm.com
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 15:17:48 GMT
Reply-To: jlpicard@austin.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Object Technology Products


mcronin@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael T Cronin) writes:
...
> Does anyone know the law or have any insight into the 
> privacy of phone numbers with respect to credit card transactions.  At various 
> stores at which I shop, clerks ask for signature AND phone number?  Do I have 
> to give this to them?  Can I refuse politely?  What is the legal answer?

I've already sent Michael a copy of Steve Adams' excellent misc.consumer
FAQ, which answers these (and mulitudinous other) questions. If anyone
else is interested in the answers, please check news.answers for the
latest version of the FAQ.

Craig
-- 
-- "You will have the tallest,    Craig Becker, Object Technology Products --
--  darkest leading man in               Internet: jlpicard@austin.ibm.com --
--  Hollywood."                     IBM TR: jlpicard@woofer.austin.ibm.com --
--   - Merian C. Cooper to Fay Wray               VNET: JLPICARD at AUSVM1 --
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: kme@node_1f11c.bnr.ca (Ken Michael Edwards)
Subject: Re: Clinton's flip-flop on Haitians!
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Research Triangle Park, NC
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 18:52:54 GMT

On June 18, 1992 Bill Clinton on television made it clear that he disagreed with the current administration's policy of returning Haitians, and he would change it.
THIS STATEMENT caused the Haitian people to build boats and start to come over as soon as he was elected !!  HE already has the blood of 400 Haitians on his hands EVEN BEFORE becoming president !  WORDS MEAN THINGS. AS A PRESIDENTIAL CANIDATE AND REALIZING THAT HE MAY BE PRESIDENT, HE MUST CONSIDER THE CONSEQUENCENCES OF HIS STATEMENTS !  Put that in your pipe and smoke it !!!!

-- 
======================================================================

Ken M. Edwards, Bell Northern Research, Research Triangle Park, NC
(919) 481-8476 email: cnc23a@bnr.ca    Ham: N4ZBB

All opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of
my employer or co-workers, family, friends, or president(-elect).
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Shouting "Movie!" at a Fire Station (Schenck v US)
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 06:14:33 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.042939.4516@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1993Jan20.143705.4685@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>Perjury, fraud, disclosure of classified information and false advertising
>>have never been considered "incitement to imminent lawless action."
>>They are in other classes of unprotected speech. It is nonsensical to
>>bring them in to the discussion here.
>
>Just out of curiosity, what is the justification for federal laws on
>these subjects? The Amendment is very specific: "Congress shall
>make no law..." All of the logic concerning unprotected speach and
>incitement makes sense to me, in the context of state laws (i.e. 
>in defining and limiting the Fourteenth Amendment) but I don't
>see the justification for ignoring the direct text of the First
>Amendment with respect to the federal government.

Because the Constitution says "freedom of speech" rather than "speech."
It's not quite clear what the Founders meant by "freedom of speech" (all
accounts indicate that they weren't particularly absolutist about the
issue, and that it meant at a minimum freedom from prior restraints and
licensing, but beyond that it's quite controversial), but I don't think 
it's controversial that F/S didn't include, say, bribery.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution