Datasets:

ymoslem

/

Law-StackExchange

like 20

[ { "answer_id": 7451, "body": "<p>A corporate entity has to have a (single) domicile somewhere, because its members/owners will always want it governed by a single set of non-conflicting rules and laws. <a href=\"https://law.stackexchange.com/a/1629/10\">Many businesses incorporate in Delaware because it has gone out of its way to make itself an attractive corporate domicile</a>.</p>\n\n<p>When a business takes up activity in another state or country it does so as a \"foreign\" entity. For example, a Delaware corporation that employs someone in another U.S. state will have to register as a \"foreign corporation\" with that state (usually with the Office of the Secretary of State), pay \"franchise\" taxes/fees to that state, and comply with that state's employment law. A corporation with a \"business presence\" in another state will also likely incur tax liabilities associated with its \"nexus\" to the state. The most famous liability is the obligation to collect sales tax on all sales to entities within the state. But it may also incur corporate tax liabilities on the portion of its profit attributable to that state.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "united-states", "corporate-law" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7447, "body": "<p>It means that if one party breaks the lease and the other party chooses not to enforce their rights in relation to the breach, it doesn't mean that they won't enforce their rights the next time that provision is breached <em>unless</em> they agree that in writing thereby changing the agreement.</p>\n\n<p>Which may just be the longest coherent sentence I have ever written.</p>\n", "score": 5 } ]

[ "contract-law", "rental-property" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7429, "body": "<p>If a nation's constitution does not allow a legal means of secession, then the only possibility would be to appeal to a multi-national judicial body, but such bodies have negligible power to enforce. While numerous organizations recognise a generalized right to self-determination (for example the <a href=\"http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/declaration.shtml\" rel=\"nofollow\">UN has declared</a> that \"all peoples have the right to self-determination\"), this does not automatically translate into an internationally-recognized right to illegal secession. The International Court of Justice deftly avoided any finding on whether Kosovo had a right to secede, and there is no generally recognised (or denied) \"right to secede\". There are certain conditions under which one would have support for a claim to legal secession, for example peoples subject to decolonization, the territory was invaded / annexed after 1945, or the state flagrantly violates the rights of those peoples concerned. The \"decolonization\" angle has been applied to Somaliland (the premise being that the merger of British and Italian colonies into the nation of Somalia was invalid). The use of \"peoples\" reflect the importance of some sort of ethic division, which becomes a matter of controversy.</p>\n\n<p>There is reading on the topic, for example:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1329&amp;context=djcil\" rel=\"nofollow\">Secession: State Practice and International Law after the Dissolution of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia</a></li>\n<li><a href=\"http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199796953/obo-9780199796953-0044.xml\" rel=\"nofollow\">Secession (Bibliography by Theodore Christakis)</a></li>\n<li><a href=\"http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital-Library/Publications/Detail/?id=153359\" rel=\"nofollow\">The Remedial Right of Secession in International Law</a></li>\n</ul>\n", "score": 3 }, { "answer_id": 7432, "body": "<p>Here's a historical example of this conflict.</p>\n\n<p>The Supreme Court of Canada in <em><a href=\"http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1643/index.do\" rel=\"nofollow\">Reference re Secession of Quebec</a></em> held that:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>In the circumstances, the \"National Assembly, the legislature or the government of Quebec\" do not enjoy a right at international law to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>They also address practicality of a <em>de facto</em> unilateral separation:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Although there is no right, under the Constitution or at international law, to unilateral secession, the possibility of an unconstitutional declaration of secession leading to a de facto secession is not ruled out. The ultimate success of such a secession would be dependent on recognition by the international community, which is likely to consider the legality and legitimacy of secession having regard to, amongst other facts, the conduct of Quebec and Canada, in determining whether to grant or withhold recognition. Even if granted, such recognition would not, however, provide any retroactive justification for the act of secession, either under the Constitution of Canada or at international law.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Since the court found that international law <em>and</em> the Canadian Constitution both agree that Quebec cannot secede unilaterally, there was no need to get to the question of which one preempts the other:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>[...] there is no conflict between domestic and international law to be addressed [...]</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>This resulted in the <a href=\"http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-31.8/fulltext.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">Clarity Act</a>, which recognizes what I mention above:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that there is no right, under international law or under the Constitution of Canada, for the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>The act sets out out the conditions under which the Government of Canada would recognize a province's desire to secede (a clear question must presented to the people, where the \"clarity\" of the question is decided by the House of Commons). It also broadly prescribes how the secession negotiations will proceed.</p>\n", "score": 3 }, { "answer_id": 7434, "body": "<blockquote>\n <p>the self-determination of the people is understood, in light of international law, as a peremptory norm (jus cogens)</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Well, yes and no.</p>\n\n<p>The declaration itself is <em>specifically</em> drafted in connection to the decolonialisation that was occurring at that time (1960) and it is arguable that it doesn't apply to \"peoples\" who are not ruled by an \"alien\" power. Specifically, \"peoples\" in a pluralistic, democratic nation that enjoy the same legal and political rights as all other citizens may find difficulty in arguing that they were subject to an \"alien\" power.</p>\n\n<p>The concept of \"peoples\" is also subject to some level of legal difficulty as it is a <a href=\"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox\" rel=\"nofollow\">heap paradox</a>. Clearly 1 person who wants to secede is not a \"people\", and equally clearly if all the citizens of a state want to secede then they are \"people\": so how big does a group of secessionists have to become in order to be a \"people\"?</p>\n\n<p>In addition, international law also recognises the right of sovereign nations to govern their own internal affairs; even in ways that infringe on internationally accepted human rights. In general, there is <em>always</em> tension within a legal system - some laws push one way and others in a different way; this is one of the things that leads to a legal system needing courts; if the law were clear to everyone they would be superfluous. However, the problem with clear laws is that the second the world changes the laws need to be updated. </p>\n\n<p>As it stands, the Brazilian constitution forbids secession. I am guessing that the highest court in Brazil is a creature of that constitution and would be bound to follow it.</p>\n\n<p><strong>Historical Precedents</strong></p>\n\n<p>Another answer has indicated that secession of a Canadian province is unlawful and would remain unlawful even if it happened unilaterally and was subsequently accepted by Canada and the international community. That is, it would be the exact same situation that the American Declaration of Independence created: an unlawful rebellion that remained unlawful even though the independence of the United States was accepted by Britain and the international community subsequently. Indeed, it is the same situation that arose when the Confederate States of America unilaterally seceded even though the outcome was different.</p>\n\n<p>In more recent times, secessionist movements in places like Quebec, Scotland and the UK (secession from the EU) have attempted to progress the mater through legal methods. First, by holding plebiscites to determine if there was sufficient local support. All of these, so far, have shown insufficient support and so the matter of what happens next has not had to be considered. Presumably, it would then have fallen to the larger entity whether to support or oppose legal secession and if the former, changing laws and constitutions to enable it.</p>\n", "score": 0 }, { "answer_id": 7442, "body": "<p>It is important to understand that international law is more dictated by <em>custom</em> than by actual laws.</p>\n\n<p>It is <em>customary</em> for nations to enter into agreements with the intention of complying with those agreements. But nations are ultimately sovereign entities, solely responsible for judging their own compliance. International law is nothing more than these agreements. If a nation's court of last resort rules a certain way, there is no higher body before which the dispute may be brought, absent the consent of the nation. In theory, the <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice\" rel=\"nofollow\">International Court of Justice</a> <em>could</em> try the case in absentia (i.e. without the involvement of the nation), but there would be no point, since the judgment would not be practically enforceable. As such, the ICJ doesn't even bother doing this, and will generally only try these cases with the consent of all nations involved.</p>\n", "score": 0 } ]

[ "international", "constitutional-law", "human-rights" ]

[ { "answer_id": 6738, "body": "<p>They can state that the governing law will be Czech but if, for example, they sell a product into Australia, then Australian consumer law will also apply and this clause would be invalid as the statutory warranties that this law imposes cannot be excluded. Indeed, they have breached the misleading and deceptive conduct provisions of the ACL just by making this statement. If an action was brought in Australian court then it would be decided by ACL where this applies and Czech law where it doesn't.</p>\n\n<p>In general, you cannot decide in advance which jurisdictions will decide that they have jurisdiction. Therefore, it is always better to make such exclusions subject to \"To the extent permitted by law ...\" if you have contracts that may be cross-jurisdictional.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "contract-law", "eula" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7427, "body": "<p>The analysis is always with respect to the work that the owner is claiming infringement of. Work C would be compared to work A.</p>\n\n<p>The copyright owner would have to prove copying happened (even via an intermediary, like work B). The copyright owner would also have to prove that work C included a substantial taking of the original work in A.</p>\n\n<p>The owner of work C could raise a fair use defense, and work C would be subject to the 4-factor fair use test in relation to work A.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "united-states", "copyright", "intellectual-property", "fair-use" ]

[ { "answer_id": 6731, "body": "<p>Filming something isn't illegal, but I doubt it would serve as good evidence anyway.</p>\n<p>Since you are serving evidence personally, you've got a few options to verify that:</p>\n<ul>\n<li><p>Bring a witness</p>\n<p>This is probably your best bet. Bring a witness, and have them swear, or affirm, that they witnessed giving you the documents. This says so on the website that you linked.</p>\n</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Now to go over your concerns:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>If I do this what should I do if no one answers the door? What should I do if someone who I don't know answers the door?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p><a href=\"https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/courts/guides/Guide_to_Serving_Documents_EN.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">According to this document (despite being in Ontario),</a> if they appear to be over the age of 18, you can give it to them. Make sure that you catch their name. Make sure that the document that you are serving is in an envelope that is addressed to your landlord. Make sure that the person that you speak with also lives there. However, the document also says that you need to mail it to them on the same day. Make sure to get a receipt of this to verify that you served the document through mail.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>I don't think this happened, but how can I verify the landlord still lives there and hasn't recently moved?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>If you don't think this happened, I don't think you should worry about it.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>What happens if the landlord refuses it? For example he comes to the door and won't take it from my hand, or wouldn't sign for the delivery?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Again, according to the Ontario document, <s>throw it at their feet and run</s>. No but seriously, if your landlord refuses to accept the document, you can drop it to the floor, at their feet, and the document will be considered served. I would definitely try to have a witness in this one, and make sure that this is a detail that is noted in the case.</p>\n<p>Do what you need to do to serve the document. Chances are, you can ask the small claims court to honour your costs associated with serving the document: assuming you did so through mail or courier.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "canada", "evidence", "small-claims-court", "british-columbia" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7424, "body": "<p>Very simply, that's called a conspiracy to commit fraud with investment instruments. <a href=\"http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy\" rel=\"nofollow\">http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy</a></p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Is that a common and viable strategy?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>It happens, though because it is illegal, it's probably <em>(hopefully)</em> not common. And since it's illegal, generally speaking, people view it as not very viable.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Are laws protecting future investors against this kind of games?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Yes. Read:</p>\n\n<p>Securities Fraud <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities_fraud\" rel=\"nofollow\">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities_fraud</a></p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p><em>Securities fraud, also known as stock fraud and investment fraud, is a\n deceptive practice in the stock or commodities markets that induces\n investors to make purchase or sale decisions on the basis of false\n information, frequently resulting in losses, in violation of\n securities laws</em></p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>In particular:</p>\n\n<p>Pump and Dump: <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pump_and_dump\" rel=\"nofollow\">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pump_and_dump</a></p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p><em>Pump and dump\" (P&amp;D) is a form of microcap stock fraud that involves\n artificially inflating the price of an owned stock through false and\n misleading positive statements, in order to sell the cheaply purchased\n stock at a higher price.</em></p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Insider Trading: <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider_trading\" rel=\"nofollow\">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider_trading</a></p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p><em>Insider trading is the trading of a public company's stock or other\n securities (such as bonds or stock options) by individuals with access\n to nonpublic information about the company. In various countries,\n trading based on insider information is illegal.</em></p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>And: The regulatory and enforcement agency is the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p><em>The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission \"holds primary\n responsibility for enforcing the federal securities laws, proposing\n securities rules, and regulating the securities industry, the nation's\n stock and options exchanges, and other activities and organizations,\n including the electronic securities markets in the United States.\"\n <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Securities_and_Exchange_Commission\" rel=\"nofollow\">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Securities_and_Exchange_Commission</a></em></p>\n</blockquote>\n", "score": 4 } ]

[ "corporate-law" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7417, "body": "<p>Ideas (methods of playing, game mechanics, strategy, goals) cannot be protected by copyright. But any part of a creative work can. </p>\n\n<p>So, no copying of drawings, patterns, images, sounds, or the element. I suppose copying the software code is not an issue here, but it can, obviously, also not be copied. And nothing in your game can look like someone's else trademark. </p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "copyright", "trademark" ]

[ { "answer_id": 6710, "body": "<p>No, each nation in the world is sovereign; that means the government of that nation decides what the law is for that nation.</p>\n\n<p>If that government decides to create a \"council\" which has statutory powers then the laws they make are binding within their jurisdiction only.</p>\n\n<p>If the council has no statutory power then it's just a group of guys getting together and saying stuff and it only applies to you if you decide it does.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "nationality" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7422, "body": "<p>From <a href=\"https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/464/417/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.</a>, 464 U.S. 417 (1984).</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes, or, indeed, is merely capable of substantial noninfringing uses.</p>\n<p>[...]</p>\n<p>there is a significant likelihood that substantial numbers of copyright holders who license their works for broadcast on free television would not object to having their broadcast time-shifted by private viewers (i.e., recorded at a time when the VTR owner cannot view the broadcast so that it can be watched at a later time); and (2) that there is no likelihood that time-shifting would cause nonminimal harm to the potential market for, or the value of, respondents' copyrighted works. The VTR's are therefore capable of substantial noninfringing uses. Private, noncommercial time-shifting in the home satisfies this standard of noninfringing uses both because respondents have no right to prevent other copyright holders from authorizing such time-shifting for their programs and because the District Court's findings reveal that even the unauthorized home time-shifting of respondents' programs is legitimate fair use.</p>\n<p>[...]</p>\n<p>we must conclude that this record amply supports the District Court's conclusion that home time-shifting is fair use.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>This is distinguishable from downloading movies because in the case of videotape or PVR recording, the copyright owner authorized the broadcast, and private, non-commercial time-shifting at home has been held to be fair use.</p>\n<p>When downloading a movie, the copyright owner did <em>not</em> authorize the communication, and copying movies by downloading them from an unauthorized source is not generally considered fair use.</p>\n<p>One policy reason why this difference might make sense is that when time-shifting, you are usually paying for the channels, and they are in turn paying the copyright owner for the permission to transmit their work. However, this is only a guess, and not really relevant to your legal question.</p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "online-piracy" ]

[ { "answer_id": 6708, "body": "<p><strong>No</strong></p>\n\n<p>They explicitly say:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Please provide us with your name and phone number. We will be sure your name is removed from the list we share with other organizations</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>They have not done this. Add this fact to your BBB complaint and write them a C&amp;D letter.</p>\n", "score": 1 }, { "answer_id": 6709, "body": "<p>Nope. The fact that they have shared your personal information online to another site violates their Privacy Policy.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Please provide us with your name and phone number. We will be sure your name is removed from the list we share with other organizations</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>With respect to your email address, they did explicitly state that they can share it:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>From time to time, we make the e-mail addresses of those who access our site available to other reputable organizations whose products or services we think you might find interesting. If you do not want us to share your e-mail address with other companies or organizations, please let us know by calling us at the number provided above.</p>\n<p>From time to time, we make our customer e-mail list available to other reputable organizations whose products or services we think you might find interesting. If you do not want us to share your e-mail address with other companies or organizations, please let us know by calling us at the number provided above.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Honestly, the company sounds like a horrible place. I wouldn't shop with them again. You should add it to your BBB complaint, linking to the relevant sections of the Privacy Policy as well.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "internet", "privacy", "terms-of-service", "defamation" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7398, "body": "<p>Article IV, Section 4 says this:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>That would mean no state can be a kingdom.</p>\n\n<p><b>PS in response to comments:</b> This section does not mean the federal government is guaranteeing to the states that the <b>federal</b> government will be republican in form; rather the federal government is required to guarantee that the <b>state</b> governments will be republican in form. That is done when Congress looks over a proposed state constitution before admitting a proposed new state to the Union. That has not always been done, since in particular it was not done in Kentucky. (On February 4, 1791, Congress passed an act saying the district of Kentucky in the state of Virginia would be admitted as a new state, of course with the consent of the Virginia legislature that had been expressed in 1789, but would not be admitted until almost 16 more months passed. The politicians of Kentucky had requested the long delay so they could use the time to negotiate compromises on details of their state constitution, which hadn't been written yet. That was the first time Congress passed a law admitting a new state, but because of the delay, Kentucky became the 15th state rather than the 14th (Vermont is the 14th).)</p>\n", "score": 6 } ]

[ "united-states", "us-constitution", "constitutional-law" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7411, "body": "<p>I would <em>guess</em> this is protection in case <em>you</em> try to sue <em>them</em>.</p>\n\n<p>When you come claiming concussion, blinding headaches and permanent disability, they can say \"No, our records show you needed a band aid and an aspirin\".</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "liability" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7410, "body": "<p><em>Need to use</em> is too strong a claim but 90 days is a different period of time than 3 months.</p>\n\n<p>90 days from 1 July is 29 September but 3 months is 1 October.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "california" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7394, "body": "<p>The constitutional protection afforded people in the United States for freedom of association is protection from interference by the government and its agents.</p>\n\n<p>Until the age of majority, or emancipation by a court of law, parents enjoy broad discretion over the activities of their children including with whom they can associate.</p>\n\n<p>Complexities do arise for children of divorced parents <em>who disagree</em> as to who can set the characteristics of how the children are raised. In these cases family court intervention is used to deem what's in the best interest of the child.</p>\n\n<p>Complexities can also arise for children facing medical treatment. The most common example would be a parent attempting to refuse specific care for their child. In these cases it's possible to get a court to deem the parents \"unfit\" in order to force the medical treatment to go forward. This is usually a high-bar to achieve as the courts don't want to interfere in the parent-child relationship unless there is no other choice. Such medical treatment can also apply to mental-health services.</p>\n\n<p>New York, <a href=\"http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/2014-child-welfare-legislative-enactments.aspx\" rel=\"nofollow\">as an example</a>,</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>allows the local commissioner of social services or local commissioner\n of health to give consent for medical, dental, health and hospital services for any child found by the family court to be an abused, neglected or destitute child.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Oklahoma created the <a href=\"http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/2014-child-welfare-legislative-enactments.aspx\" rel=\"nofollow\">Parent's Bill of Rights</a> (same link as above) which:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>prohibited the state from infringing upon parental rights, directed the board of education of a school district to develop a policy listing parental rights related to education, including sex education; prohibited a surgical procedure on a minor without parental consent—excluding abortion— and, prohibited a mental health evaluation of a minor without parental consent. </p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>You will find that it will take court intervention to interfere with parental discretion and that court intervention will likely need to find the parents unfit to make the decision. Assuming the advocacy groups you outline in your question are not providing medical care it is extremely unlikely that a court will interfere.</p>\n\n<p>The right of association is not implicated in your question because it is not the government preventing the child from participating.</p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "minor", "family-law", "first-amendment", "religious-law" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7402, "body": "<p>A trademark can't prevent you from using your own name.</p>\n\n<p>For example, see Canada's <a href=\"http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/t-13/FullText.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">Trademark Act Section 12(1)(a)</a>:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Subject to section 13, a trade-mark is registrable if it is not a word that is primarily merely the name or the surname of an individual who is living or has died within the preceding thirty years;</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>However, marks that are \"primarily merely\" a name or surname can eventually gain distinctiveness in association with a product. In that case, the registration may be allowed.</p>\n\n<p>Even so, Section 20(1.1)(a) provides an exception that lets you use your own name, regardless of whether somebody else has registered the mark:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>The registration of a trade-mark does not prevent a person from making, in a manner that is not likely to have the effect of depreciating the value of the goodwill attaching to the trade-mark, any bona fide use of his or her personal name as a trade-name.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>The US is similar. See <a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1052\" rel=\"nofollow\">15 USC § 1052(e)</a>, which precludes registration of a mark that is \"primarily merely a surname.\"</p>\n\n<p>This relatively uniform treatment of personal names is due in part to the <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIPS_Agreement\" rel=\"nofollow\">TRIPS Agreement</a>. See <a href=\"https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm3_e.htm#2\" rel=\"nofollow\">Article 24, paragraph 8</a>:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>The provisions of this Section shall in no way prejudice the right of any person to use, in the course of trade, that person's name or the name of that person's predecessor in business, except where such name is used in such a manner as to mislead the public.</p>\n</blockquote>\n", "score": 6 } ]

[ "trademark" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7384, "body": "<p>Ultimately the answer (in the US) is the US Constitution. The courts pretty much have the unlimited power to interpret the law, and the limits on power mainly pertain to what the state can do. The length of the leash on the government depends on what kind of rights are at stake. The weakest and default limit is known as \"rational basis\", and comes down to asking whether a government action is rationally related to a legitimate government interest (such as stopping terrorist attacks) plus whether there was due process and equal protection. There are more rigorous standards (intermediate scrutiny, strict scrutiny) in case a law involves a \"suspect classification\", or in case a fundamental constitutional right is infringed. In the case of strict scrutiny, the government would have to show that it had a compelling interest in the action, the law would have to be \"narrowly tailored\" (i.e. does that thing and only that thing), and should be the least restrictive way to achieve that result. Roe v. Wade is probably the best-know example of that kind of review, which held that abortion laws \"violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy\".</p>\n\n<p>A court would not order a party to do an impossible act. A court <em>could</em> order a party to do something which the party had argued was impossible, but you can interpret a court's decision to indicate that it rejected the argument. The defendant would not shoulder the burden of proving that the action was impossible, though they would have to counter the government's argument that the act could be performed if they believe it is not possible. (In the Apple case, the argument would probably be some Apple-internal document that says \"Yeah, we can do it, but do we want to?\"). There is probably an expense-related limit in that the courts would not order Apple to liquidate all of their assets to comply. But: if a case were to end up at the Supreme Court, the court is stricken with mass insanity and arbitrarily orders a defendant to do the impossible, there is only the option of impeachment and Senate trial to remove the offending justices, and that is just not going to happen. There is no higher authority that overturns SCOTUS.</p>\n", "score": 3 }, { "answer_id": 7407, "body": "<p>In the U.S.: the executive can choose not to enforce a ruling and pardon convicts; the legislative can pass new legislation which invalidates and even reverses previous rulings; the people can - well, you know. Torch and pitchfork stuff.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "jurisdiction", "court" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7319, "body": "<p>Let and lease are variations of the same word; the former is more common in British English and the latter more common in American English.</p>\n\n<p>Leasing is the verb form of lease.</p>\n\n<p>Adding sub to any of them just moves the arrangement down from being between the owner and the tenant to being between a tenant and a (sub)tenant.</p>\n", "score": 3 }, { "answer_id": 7356, "body": "<p>This answer relates to U.S. law only.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>What's the difference between sublet, subleasing and subletting? Are they all words for the same thing?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Yes, they are different words for the same concept and have identical meanings.</p>\n\n<p>Looking at the root words, <strong>let</strong> and <strong>lease</strong> may help to dispell some confusion. An authoritative legal dictionary, Black's Law Dictionary (10th edition 2014), defines them as follows:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li><p><strong>let</strong> <em>vb.</em> - To offer (property) for lease; to rent out. <em>The hospital let office space to several doctors.</em></p></li>\n<li><p><strong>lease</strong> <em>vb.</em> 1. To grant the possession and use of (land, buildings, rooms, movable property, etc.) to another in return for rent or other consideration. <em>The city leased the stadium to the football team.</em> 2. To take a lease of; to hold by a lease. <em>Carol leased the townhouse from her uncle</em>.</p></li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>So, in the legal context, subletting and subleasing are both used to talk about the same same concept leasing property to a third party.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>If sublet is the name of the person who takes over, is that the same\n as subletor?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Subletor is not commonly used in the practice of law&ndash;sublessor is favored. However, they have the same meaning. A subletor / sublessor is the person who is making the sublease.</p>\n\n<p>When it comes to legal jargon, an old professor gave me a tip to help decipher some of the terms used in contract/property law. The person ending in -or is the one doing the action of the root work. The word ending in -ee is the person receiving it.</p>\n", "score": 0 } ]

[ "rental-property", "legal-terms", "definition" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7400, "body": "<p>Yes!</p>\n\n<p><em><a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">Bush v. Gore</a></em>, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) reiterated that the state \"<em>may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself</em>\", and that even though every state currently uses elections to select the electors, the State \"<em>can take back the power to appoint electors</em>\".</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "united-states", "us-constitution", "voting" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7392, "body": "<p>There's a good recent decision by the European Court of Human Rights (<a href=\"http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-159906#%7B%22itemid%22:[%22001-159906%22]%7D\" rel=\"nofollow\">BĂRBULESCU v. ROMANIA</a>). This case, although not entirelly related to your question, sheds some light over it.\nIn summary decided in favor of the employer with regard to the possibility of monitoring private messages from the employee.</p>\n\n<p>The reason I say this case might be of good help is because the only Judge who voted against the ECHR decision was the portuguese Judge Pinto de Albuquerque. In his oppinion against he follows the directives defined by the portuguese authority responsible for Data Protection.\nHe states that: \"Internet surveillance in the workplace is not at the employer’s discretionary power (...) Even where there exist suspicions of cyberslacking, diversion of the employer’s IT resources for personal purposes, damage to the employer’s IT systems, involvement in illicit activities or disclosure of the employer’s trade secrets, the employer’s right to interfere with the employee’s communications is not unrestricted.\"</p>\n\n<p>The portuguese authority (CNPD) states that the employer must ensure that all employees are informed of which boundaries apply to the use of Internet for private purposes and that some forms of control might be implemented. It also states that any control should not be made in a individualized way, but rather taking into account all internet accesses within the company.</p>\n\n<p>However, it also states that if for \"cost or productivity reasons, the employee individualized control shall be done, first, through the counting of the average time spent, regardless of the sites visited.\" In the case, of excessive use, the employer should issue a warning to the employee.\nFinalizing \"The control over the daily access time and websites consulted by each worker should only be done in <strong>exceptional circumstances</strong>, in particular where, in the context of his warning, the employee doubts the company's indications and want to check the performance of such access.\" See thje actual Deliberation <a href=\"https://www.cnpd.pt/bin/orientacoes/Delib_controlo_comunic.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow\">here</a>.</p>\n\n<p>Please see and/or contact <a href=\"https://www.cnpd.pt/\" rel=\"nofollow\">CNPD</a> for more details </p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "workplace", "portugal" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7277, "body": "<p>IANAL, but a EULA is a Contract of Adhesion <a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/adhesion_contract_contract_of_adhesion\" rel=\"nofollow\">https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/adhesion_contract_contract_of_adhesion</a> and restrictions against publishing benchmarking data about products is fairly common <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/wp/dangerous-terms-users-guide-eulas\" rel=\"nofollow\">https://www.eff.org/wp/dangerous-terms-users-guide-eulas</a></p>\n\n<p>A contract is a contract, even a click-through, and is legally binding; there is plenty supporting case law. You sign when you click: <a href=\"http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-operations/contracts-and-electronic-signatures.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-operations/contracts-and-electronic-signatures.html</a></p>\n\n<p>Basically, VMware has lots more money than you do. If they are annoyed at your posting of benchmarks that don't make their products look as good as they feel they should, they can at very least send a DMCA to the site that posts the benchmarks. Whether that works could depend on where the website is hosted. At most, they could take you to civil court, if you are in their jurisdiction.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>What happens, if you refuse to take your unapproved benchmark down?\n Can they sue you?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Yes. (In civil, not criminal court).</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>How much leg does a clause like this stand on the courts? In the\n United States?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>A contract is a contract. And VMware and you (I assume) are in the US, so the contract is enforceable.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>In the rest of the world?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Outside of the US, enforceability is variable; that is searchable in law databases for each country and agreements between countries.</p>\n\n<p>Consider your motives for posting benchmarks against VMware's EULA. Do you have good points to make? Or are you simply complaining about the product? Who has more money to spend defending or fighting the EULA? You or them?</p>\n\n<p><em>If you're seriously concerned about this, talk to a lawyer and don't take legal advice from the general public.</em></p>\n", "score": 4 } ]

[ "liability", "terms-of-service", "eula" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7372, "body": "<p>It's probably legal.</p>\n\n<p>If this is arrangement between friends/acquaintances then the presumption is that it is <strong>not</strong> a contract.</p>\n\n<p>From a legal perspective, you gave them money as a gift. They don't have to give it back.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "contract-law", "small-claims-court" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7387, "body": "<p>I believe that you have misinterpreted the case, not least because the Hudgins v I.R.S case involves this only peripherally. The original case <a href=\"https://casetext.com/case/diviaio-v-kelley#p542\" rel=\"nofollow\">Diviaio v Kelly</a> was dealing with a request for the <em>number</em> of photographs taken of the plaintiff and if these had been disseminated outside the CIA. This is in no way shape or form a request for records (the records were found to be legitimately exempt).</p>\n\n<p>I see no problem in your FOI request. In fact, I can foresee the response:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>These, <a href=\"http://www.maine.gov/legis/ros/meconlaw.htm\" rel=\"nofollow\">http://www.maine.gov/legis/ros/meconlaw.htm</a>, are the laws we use to justify these actions.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>In a common law jurisdiction, a person (including the government) does not have to prove they are abiding by the law. The onus is on you to prove they aren't; they do not have to help you make your case.</p>\n", "score": 4 } ]

[ "foia" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7240, "body": "<p>Perhaps there is a date beyond which it would not be possible to do the work necessary to vet and nominate a candidate before the end of term for the President and Congress. However, we are clearly on the \"there's still time\" side of that line.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "constitutional-law", "us-supreme-court" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7381, "body": "<p>In the US there is a \"right of publicity\": you may not use someone's image commercially without obtaining their permission, but the degree of protection varies by state. <a href=\"http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1368&amp;context=elr\" rel=\"nofollow\">The UK apparently does not have a \"right of publicity\" as such</a>, but other IP and trade rules have been invoked in preventing some uses. Using the names of the celebrities in the title of the game could be a problem because it could be argued that it creates the impression of an endorsement. The <a href=\"https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/2986097?hl=en&amp;ref_topic=2985713\" rel=\"nofollow\">submission rules for the Android Store appear to explicitly forbid using somebody else's name</a>: </p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Don't use another app's branding— Don’t use another product, person,\n or company name in your app title or description if you have not been\n given express permission to do so, as this may give the impression\n that your app is officially sponsored when it is not.</p>\n</blockquote>\n", "score": 0 } ]

[ "privacy", "common-law" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7373, "body": "<p>Creating copies of a work is generally illegal, since the right \"to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies\" and the right \"to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work\" are both exclusive rights of the copyright holder. If you don't distribute those copies, though, it could be quite difficult for the copyright holder to know anything about it. Whether you acquired the original work legally or illegally has no bearing on the legality of making copies and derivatives.</p>\n\n<p>Fan art is generally <a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/prima_facie\" rel=\"nofollow\"><em>prima facie</em></a> copyright infringement, since it creates a derivative work without permission from the copyright holder. However, it may be permissible under fair use -- but remember that \"permissible under fair use\" means that when you <em>are being sued</em>, you may be able to convince a judge that your use is fair, despite being <em>prima facie</em> copyright infringement. It is possible that a particular fan work could be sufficiently transformative and well-aligned with the <a href=\"http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/\" rel=\"nofollow\">four fair use factors</a> to qualify as fair use, but there's no way to know until it is the subject of legal action and a judge assesses the case. </p>\n\n<p>You see fan art everywhere, despite its unfavorable legal status, because in general, it is not worth the trouble for artists, authors, and corporations to pursue legal action. They will probably see no tangible benefit to justify their legal expenses, since, unlike verbatim copying of their works, fan art does not typically impact their profits. Furthermore it could be harmful to their reputation to be aggressively litigious against their own fans.</p>\n\n<p>Trademark is only relevant if you are using the mark in commerce to identify the source of goods or services. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not well equipped to discuss whether your use of a well-known trademarked character would automatically constitute trademark infringement because a reasonable person would assume that your fan art's use of the trademarked character was licensed and approved by the trademark holder.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "united-states", "intellectual-property", "software", "trademark" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7353, "body": "<p>In the US, the following factors are taken into account:</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li>the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;</li>\n<li>the nature of the copyrighted work;</li>\n<li>the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and</li>\n<li>the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work</li>\n</ol>\n\n<p>So</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li>Your use is not commercial, nor educational</li>\n<li>The work is copyrighted, and there's no privacy attached to it</li>\n<li>Each card is copyrighted individually. The frames for each card may be copyrighted, or the texture.</li>\n<li>Your use is unlikely to adversely impact the market for the original work</li>\n</ol>\n\n<p>It is <em>likely</em> that such a use would be considered fair use, but there's no real way to know until you go to court. Also, you might consider whether you would be an attractive target for litigation.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "copyright", "trademark", "fair-use", "parody" ]

[ { "answer_id": 101, "body": "<p>An EULA, or \"End User License Agreement\", is a contract between the software user and the software publisher. It usually protects the interest of the software publisher, e.g. you can only use it on one computer; you may not alter it or distribute it without written agreement etc.</p>\n\n<p>In this case, the EULA specifies that:</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li>The software may be harmful to the user's computer</li>\n<li>The user's personal data may be sent to third parties</li>\n<li>The software may used to aid or perform illegal activities</li>\n<li>The software publisher is not responsible for any damage caused by using this software</li>\n</ol>\n\n<p>First thing first, is this a <strong>valid</strong> contract? Let's take a look at the essential elements of a contract:</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li>Offer and Acceptance</li>\n<li>Intention</li>\n<li>Consideration</li>\n<li>Capacity</li>\n<li>Consent</li>\n<li>Legality</li>\n<li>Possibility of performance</li>\n</ol>\n\n<p>The <strong>Legality</strong> element specifies that the contract must not be something disapproved by law. Botnets are used for attacking other computers, i.e. an unlawful act. Installing botnets may violate the <a href=\"http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/18/section/3A\" rel=\"nofollow\">Section 3A of the Computer Misuse Act 1990</a> in the UK.</p>\n\n<p>Sharing user's personal data may also violate data privacy laws.</p>\n\n<p>Let us, for the moment, assume the contract is valid. Item number 4 still causes a problem: an overly broad <strong>liability waiver</strong>. While liability waivers are common and normal, one can argue that the said waiver in this case seems to cover <em>intentional or reckless acts</em>. Such items in a contract are deemed as <strong>unenforceable</strong>.</p>\n\n<p>Parental control systems and remote observation systems are different. They can be used legally, and this legal use is common. Thus, distribution of these systems is legal. Needless to say, it is very difficult to argue that virus and botnets share the same. Of course, one can still use a remote observation system in an illegal way. In this case, the software user is liable, but the software publisher is not liable because the user's behavior is beyond their control.</p>\n", "score": 11 } ]

[ "united-states", "united-kingdom", "eula", "software" ]

[ { "answer_id": 6574, "body": "<p>The power to detain is granted by <a href=\"http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-11.html#h-30\" rel=\"nofollow\">Division 6</a> of the <em>Immigration and Refugee Protection Act</em>.</p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "canada", "immigration" ]

[ { "answer_id": 6556, "body": "<p>I am by no means an expert on this but I have also been researching the subject. I believe that you would file with the US federal government and not the state. Here is a site for it: <a href=\"http://www.uspto.gov/\" rel=\"nofollow\">http://www.uspto.gov/</a></p>\n\n<p>The important thing with trademarks is not only registering them but first making sure that there isn't anything trademarked or in use that is similar enough and in your field because even if you successfully register your trademark someone else can come and challenge you can win if its too similar to their pre-existing one.</p>\n\n<p>LegalZoom.com also has searches and ways to do it online.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "california", "trademark" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7347, "body": "<p>You cannot use the <em>libraries</em> trademarks, but that does not stop you from using your own. For example, you cannot use the name <em>Twitter Bootstrap</em> to endorse, promote or use as the name of your project. </p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "licensing", "software", "open-source-software" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7346, "body": "<p>Yes, the print is a derivative work in exactly the same way that a building is derivative work of the architectural and engineering plans.</p>\n", "score": 1 }, { "answer_id": 7344, "body": "<p>Yes, the print is a derivative work. This is because it wouldn't be able to fundamentally exist without the file. </p>\n", "score": 0 } ]

[ "copyright", "derivative-work" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7337, "body": "<p>As long as the user is entering the URL, there's no possible way you could be violating anything. Here's the process at a high level:</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li><p>Site owner makes content available to public, with TOS which may or may not be binding on the end user.</p></li>\n<li><p>End user accesses aforementioned content.</p></li>\n<li><p>End user processes it using your application, with TOS which may or may not be binding on the end user.</p></li>\n</ol>\n\n<p>As long as your application isn't illegal per se, then you can't be responsible for the possibility that your users may use it against the TOS of the original site. Want some more protection? Put a clause in your TOS that advises users that they should consult the TOS of the target site before using your application to ensure they aren't violating those TOS, and that you disclaim all liability in the case that your application is used improperly.</p>\n\n<p>Can your application be considered illegal per se? I highly doubt it. All you have there is a browser that doesn't fully render HTML pages. Want to be completely and utterly blameless? Make the full HTML available by viewing page source.</p>\n\n<p>I am not a lawyer, I am not your lawyer. THIS IS PERFECTLY LEGAL.</p>\n\n<p>(If your application points at a specific list of sites specified by you, whether configurable or not, this answer might change. If the user is the one supplying the URLs, see above).</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "copyright", "internet", "fair-use" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7255, "body": "<p>IANAL, but from my understanding, a EULA is a Contract of Adhesion <a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/adhesion_contract_contract_of_adhesion\" rel=\"nofollow\">https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/adhesion_contract_contract_of_adhesion</a></p>\n\n<p>And the clickwrap EULAs and TOSs you click through everywhere are reasonably safe for you to use: <a href=\"https://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Contracts:_Click_Wrap_Licenses\" rel=\"nofollow\">https://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Contracts:_Click_Wrap_Licenses</a></p>\n\n<p>But, if you are recording user \"click through\" information in your own database, there are a few more aspects to your EULA that concern possible protections and liabilities to you. </p>\n\n<p>By gathering personal information, you can be more certain the EULA has been clicked <em>(or even read, god-forbid)</em> by someone a bit more real than your average software clicker-and-user. The amount of info you gather depends on your needs, and could also include an email response from that user to confirm details and the EULA. That would seem to add more protection to you from the EULA.</p>\n\n<p>And, when you say \"your system,\" it sounds like they are logging in and accepting the EULA on a server you control. If so, you will have IP access logs for users, in addition to their EULA.</p>\n\n<p>But, gathering that information could be a liability. A web user who clicks on a EULA sets a cookie in their browser or in a preference file on their hard-drive. You are gathering personal information and storing it yourself or at a third party, and you need to store it securely if it is anything more than name, email and phone. And ditto your own server; if the records are on the same server as the software and the user logins, you should be sure they are separate and secure.</p>\n\n<p>And, of course, it is illegal to store many types of financial information without complying with strict state and federal laws. But if you are selling the software, you could also have the EULA integrated into a sales receipt and/or have a condition of them checking off they have accepted the EULA before they get a receipt.</p>\n\n<p>Some/all of those options would make it hard for a customer to prove they didn't know what they were getting and dissuade them from complaining when faced with different types of proof showing they knew about the EULA.</p>\n", "score": 2 }, { "answer_id": 7331, "body": "<p>A vendor usually has no need at all to prove that you accepted a EULA. </p>\n\n<p>When you buy software, you have some very limited rights to use the software given to you by copyright law. These rights are <strong>very</strong> limited; basically you don't have the right to do anything that involves copying the software. </p>\n\n<p>The EULA typically gives you more rights than the copyright law would. Not as many rights as you would like, maybe, but more than you have without the EULA. Therefore, if you claim that you didn't accept the EULA you will just lose the rights given to you by the EULA and be worse off. </p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "contract-law", "software", "eula" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7330, "body": "<p>I can't tell you about the situation in the UK, but according to Wikipedia, in Germany laws had to be introduced specifically for electricity because \"theft\" of electricity did not meet the legal definition of \"theft\" and when the first person ever to \"steal\" electricity was caught, it turned out that they couldn't be punished according to existing law. </p>\n\n<p>Electricity is not something that you can take away. It's not a material thing. Water is something that you can take away. No special laws were needed against stealing water, because that met the ordinary legal definition of theft. Same with gas. I suspect the same might be the case in the UK and many other countries. </p>\n\n<p>Looking at the UK act: Electricity is not \"property\" by the legal definition. Water is, and gas is. Wind would probably not be. </p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "united-kingdom", "criminal-law", "theft", "statutes" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7326, "body": "<p>Returning just the signature page can't possibly be bad for <em>you</em>, if they're the ones signing and returning the signed document to you. If you're signing a document, it's in your best interest to make sure that the document is clearly one atomic unit and that your signature isn't associated with anything that you're not agreeing to.</p>\n\n<p>What's the danger of just returning the last, signed page? Well, what if they substitute a new third page? What if they add a bunch of pages in the middle? Even the alteration of a few words, here and there, might be catastrophic.</p>\n\n<p>Of course - if you have records, witnesses, etc. that can attest to what you actually agreed to, you can use that as evidence that the other party is playing funny with your contract. And the judge and/or jury might even believe you!</p>\n\n<p>Better to sign/initial, number, date, everything, and include a clause requiring that on all pages. It would be easier to prove electronic tampering of a file you give them than to prove tampering on a file you haven't touched.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "contract-law" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7313, "body": "<p>Payable in advance means that you are paying for services prior to receiving them. Compare with <em>payable in arrears</em>, where you pay for something after receiving the service.</p>\n\n<p>In your situation, payable in advance means that the payment you make is for the period to come, rather than for the period just elapsed.</p>\n", "score": 5 }, { "answer_id": 7315, "body": "<p>Payable in advance means payable before the month commences. So, for March your rent is due on or before the last day in February.</p>\n", "score": 0 } ]

[ "contract-law", "rental-property", "legal-terms", "sublease" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7262, "body": "<p>I'm sorry to deflate what is clearly a <em>very</em> philosophically interesting question, but the law is straightforward here.</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li>The truth, essentially, is the set of facts that you believe to be true.</li>\n<li>Yes.</li>\n<li>It means that you will not lie by omission, and that you will provide the relevant facts. No, you don't need to recount history since the first instant of the big bang.</li>\n</ol>\n\n<p>Only <em>expert</em> witnesses may answer by giving their opinion or evaluation. This is presumed accurate by their experience and where it is not accurate, the other side may present opposing expert witnesses to contest their conclusion or evaluation.</p>\n\n<p>Laypeople are permitted to answer only with their recollection of facts. Lawyers may not ask them what their opinion is, although by your definition every question is about opinion, since perception and memory is limited. But the question \"What colour was Mr Smith's house?\" and \"What architectural style informed the facade of Mr Smith's house?\" require different amounts of expertise and opinion.</p>\n\n<p>\"Truth\" isn't jargon, or even technical language here. I generally aim to be truthful, and so when someone asks me what time it is, I don't feel compelled to answer to the nano/picosecond. Would you call me a liar? Am I lying by omission?</p>\n\n<p>Similarly, if someone asks me what colour a car is, I don't feel compelled to say \"I can't possibly know, because my perception may differ from yours.</p>\n\n<p>If you honestly feel that when someone asks you to be truthful about something, then you must either be lying, or lying by omission if you don't start your answer with the first instant of the big bang, your problem is not one of law.</p>\n", "score": 10 }, { "answer_id": 7314, "body": "<p><em>Bronston v. United States</em>, 409 U.S. 352 (1973) interpreted the federal perjury statute (<a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1621\" rel=\"noreferrer\">18 USC §1621</a>) in the US.</p>\n<p>In this case, the following exchange happened in a bankruptcy hearing:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>&quot;Q. Do you have any bank accounts in Swiss banks, Mr. Bronston?&quot;</p>\n<p>&quot;A. No, sir.&quot;</p>\n<p>&quot;Q. Have you ever?&quot;</p>\n<p>&quot;A. The company had an account there for about six months, in Zurich.&quot;</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Questioning went on to other matters.</p>\n<p>Each of Mr. Bronston's answers was true. However, Mr. Bronston previously had a personal bank account in a Swiss bank that he did not mention in the second answer. You might consider that he had not told the &quot;whole truth&quot;.</p>\n<p>The court held that the federal perjury statute does not prohibit an answer &quot;that is literally true, but unresponsive, even assuming the witness intends to mislead his questioner by the answer, and even assuming the answer is arguably 'false by negative implication'&quot;.</p>\n<p>The most pertinent portion of the opinion, with respect to your question is this:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Under the pressures and tensions of interrogation, it is not uncommon for the most earnest witnesses to give answers that are not entirely responsive. Sometimes the witness does not understand the question, or may, in an excess of caution or apprehension, read too much or too little into it. It should come as no surprise that a participant in a bankruptcy proceeding may have something to conceal and consciously tries to do so, or that a debtor may be embarrassed at his plight and yield information reluctantly. It is the responsibility of the lawyer to probe; testimonial interrogation, and cross-examination in particular, is a probing, prying, pressing form of inquiry. If a witness evades, it is the lawyer's responsibility to recognize the evasion and to bring the witness back to the mark, to flush out the whole truth with the tools of adversary examination.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>It is up to the questioner to realize the misunderstanding or idiosyncratic way in which a witness has interpreted the question and rephrase so as to flush out the whole truth that they seek.</p>\n<p>As a practical matter, if you were to answer in the way that you suggest, the examiner would rephrase in order to get your testimony about how you believe something happened to the best of your recollection, or the particular color experience you are having when observing the pen, etc.</p>\n", "score": 7 }, { "answer_id": 7264, "body": "<p>It also means, I believe, that if you are found to have lied or misled the court 'under oath' then you can be charged with perjury. Thus being put under oath is a real incentive to not lie or obscure things that the lawyer or judge or jury might reasonably be entitled to know in order to pursue their respective tasks in good faith.</p>\n", "score": 0 } ]

[ "witnesses" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7305, "body": "<p>It isn't ordinarily written in law. The only law directly pointing this out would likely be if you can show a court case with similar facts where an employer was made to pay.</p>\n\n<p>Parties have obligations under contracts, which in most cases are established by the contract itself rather than the law. Those obligations are enforced by bringing a lawsuit in court for \"breach of contract.\" (Or, if the contract specifies, going to arbitration).</p>\n\n<p>If a party refuses to honor their contract, the typical next step is to have a lawyer to write the party a sternly worded \"demand letter\" on law firm letterhead that makes the party realize he, she, or it has a legal obligation and it will be cheaper to pay than to fight.</p>\n", "score": 2 }, { "answer_id": 7306, "body": "<p>Contract law is common law, not statute law, that is, there is no piece of legislation that you can point to and say \"there's the law\".</p>\n\n<p>What you need to do is find cases, preferably decided in your state that support the enforcement of such a clause and quote the cases to the principal.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "united-states", "contract-law", "business" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7304, "body": "<p>This is not really a legal question; it's more a question about the political process to finalize the law or one about technical implementations of the act's requirements. Try</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-8180.htm\" rel=\"nofollow\">https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-8180.htm</a></p>\n\n<p><a href=\"http://www.soxlaw.com/\" rel=\"nofollow\">http://www.soxlaw.com/</a></p>\n\n<p><a href=\"http://www.sarbanes-oxley-forum.com/modules.php?name=Forums&amp;file=viewtopic&amp;p=10121\" rel=\"nofollow\">http://www.sarbanes-oxley-forum.com/modules.php?name=Forums&amp;file=viewtopic&amp;p=10121</a></p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "data-storage" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7283, "body": "<p>See <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10,_Inc._v._Amazon.com,_Inc.\"><em>Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.</em></a>. The use of image thumbnails as part of a search engine is <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformativeness\">transformative</a> and <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use\">fair use</a>.</p>\n", "score": 10 } ]

[ "copyright", "internet", "intellectual-property" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4531, "body": "<p>What you describe is nothing malicious. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't say whether it <em>technically</em> runs afoul of laws proscribing \"unauthorized access/use of computer systems.\" Also, it may <em>technically</em> run afoul of the host's terms and conditions.</p>\n\n<p>Again, IANAL, so I can't rule out the sad possibility that you could be in legal trouble for what you did ... assuming that a hosting service that left a vulnerability like that open had the means and interest to review your activity (I leave it to the reader to assess the probability of <em>that</em>). However, as a businessman I think the following facts are salient:</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li>You noticed a security hole.</li>\n<li>You did the bare minimum to verify it.</li>\n<li>You did absolutely no damage to the computer system, and you did not access any substantial unauthorized data.</li>\n</ol>\n\n<p>If I were you I'd first check with the host to see if they offer bounties for finding security holes. If they don't, I'd notify them. If you alert them and don't ask for money, make threats, or anything else, you're going as white-hat as you can, and they <em>should</em> be relieved that you aren't attempting to exploit or extort your find. (Heck, they <em>should</em> be so grateful that they should offer you a substantial reward, but again, reality often fulls short of such ideals ;)</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "hacking", "austria" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7295, "body": "<p>Under US immigration law, any person who at any point after February 27, 2001 meets all of the following conditions automatically receives citizenship the moment they meet the conditions:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>Under 18</li>\n<li>Lawful permanent resident (i.e. has a green card)</li>\n<li>At least one biological parent is a US citizen (adoptive parents also count of some other requirements are met; stepparents don't count unless they have adopted the child)</li>\n<li>Lives in the US in both the physical and legal custody of said US citizen parent</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>As far as USCIS is concerned, if a biological child lives with both biological parents, then the US citizen parent has legal custody. If the child was born out of wedlock, they must have been legitimated before they turned 16 to count as their father's child; the applicable law for that depends on where exactly you live. </p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartH-Chapter4.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">Source</a></p>\n", "score": 4 } ]

[ "united-states", "citizenship" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7276, "body": "<p>Since you say this question is general, I'll give an example from the U.S. (However, I explain below that some of your assumptions about how constitutions and legislation interact are flawed.)</p>\n\n<p>In <em>Heien v. North Carolina</em>, the US Supreme Court ruled that seizures (such as a traffic stop) can be justified by reasonable mistakes of law.</p>\n\n<p>The Fourth Amendment prohibits <em>unreasonable</em> searches and seizures. The court emphasised that the \"touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness\".</p>\n\n<p>Because the officer's mistake of law was reasonable, there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment.</p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>The above was an example where a mistake of law was claimed by the defendant to result in a constitutional violation.</p>\n\n<p>In general, constitutions do not say how particular statutes are to be interpreted. They may put constraints on what legislation may be passed. Courts may default to interpret statutes in ways that do not conflict with the constitution when there are several reasonable interpretations.</p>\n\n<p>But, just because somebody in the executive branch erroneously interprets a statute does not mean that the constitution is implicated.</p>\n\n<p>If a person seeking some benefit is being asked to comply with a condition that is not required by statute, they may sue to get the courts to make a holding about how to interpret the statute. Before jumping to that extreme measure, there might be some lower-cost ways to challenge the individual public servant's interpretation (talking to a supervisor, a within-department appeal process, tribunals, etc.)</p>\n", "score": 2 }, { "answer_id": 7293, "body": "<p>I don't know about Australia, but I'll answer for the United States.</p>\n\n<p>If a public servant, acting in the capacity of his office, tells you to do something, and it's wrong, the public servant is usually shielded from the consequences, unless the errant recommendation was \"egregiously\" wrong. (A public servant cannot get away with telling you to commit \"murder,\" either literally or figuratively.)</p>\n\n<p>On the other hand, <em>you</em> are shielded (if you save the documentation or other evidence) from the consequences of your resulting actions, if you relied in good faith on the public servant's errant (but good faith) recommendation, to your detriment.</p>\n", "score": 0 } ]

[ "constitutional-law", "australia", "regulations" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7285, "body": "<p>All laws and government actions have to comply with the restrictions of the US Constitution. <em>Marbury v. Madison (1804)</em> said that \"a law repugnant to the Constitution is void\".</p>\n\n<p>For a recent example where government actions towards the goal of national security were found to be contrary to the Constitution, see <em>Boumediene v. Bush (2008)</em>. Most relevant to your question is their holding that (emphasis mine):</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Petitioners have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus. <em>They are not barred from seeking the writ or invoking the Suspension Clause’s protections because they have been designated as enemy combatants</em> or because of their presence at Guantanamo.</p>\n</blockquote>\n", "score": 1 }, { "answer_id": 7286, "body": "<p>The case involves an order for Apple to create and sign an operating system update bypassing encryption on the device by disabling the auto-erase and delay-password-retries function, allowing a brute force attack.</p>\n\n<p>Ethics and admissability are not issues, nor to my knowledge is a privacy agreement. Notably, the phone's owner is consenting to the search, but does not know the password.</p>\n\n<p>Obviously claims that national security legitimizes behavior X have some limitations under the law of any nation which claims to be ruled by law, including the United States. Where the precise boundaries of legitimate national security concerns lies is an ever-evolving question. For example, the Alien and Sedition Act (and by implication, similar state statutes prohibiting anti-American speech) was struck down in Brandenberg v. Ohio, but had been accepted up to that point. </p>\n\n<p>Simiarly, the Korematsu decision legitimized the race-based American concentration camps targeting Japanese Americans even though we recognize today that they were clear violations of the Fourteenth Amendment and nobody with half a brain will get caught dead citing the case. Each generation wrestles anew with the legal limits on how far national security justifies intrusion into the individual sphere of liberty.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "us-constitution" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7281, "body": "<blockquote>\n <p><em>Very similar to how MySpace done it all those years back....</em></p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>MySpace did it differently back then because they got sued for copyright violations for the music their users were uploading and streaming. <a href=\"https://www.google.com/search?q=myspace+lawsuit+music\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">https://www.google.com/search?q=myspace+lawsuit+music</a></p>\n\n<p>These days, you can upload music to MySpace, but they have licenses and agreements with music publishers, and are clear to their users what can be legally uploaded: <a href=\"https://help.myspace.com/hc/en-us/articles/202591770-Music-Upload-Requirements\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">https://help.myspace.com/hc/en-us/articles/202591770-Music-Upload-Requirements</a></p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>And remember.... By uploading any content to Myspace, you hereby\n certify that you own the copyright in or have all the necessary rights\n related to such content to upload it. Don't step on someone else's\n hard work.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>And Myspace is are clear on how they handle copyright violations: <a href=\"https://help.myspace.com/hc/en-us/articles/202055394-Copyright-FAQs\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">https://help.myspace.com/hc/en-us/articles/202055394-Copyright-FAQs</a></p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Myspace will respond to allegations of copyright violations in\n accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”). The\n DMCA provides a process for a copyright owner to give notification to\n an online service provider concerning alleged copyright infringement.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Now, with your question: you are allowing users to both upload music and stream it.</p>\n\n<p>Streaming is legal in the UK; see an older question here on LSE <a href=\"https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/1729/is-streaming-copyrighted-content-illegal-in-the-uk\">Is Streaming Copyrighted Content Illegal in the UK</a></p>\n\n<p>But the hosting - storing the actual files - of copyrighted material is <strong>not</strong> legal.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p><em>But my app knows no detail of the song uploaded. Could be anything....</em></p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>This doesn't matter; the files are on your server.</p>\n\n<p>You run the risk of legal action being taken against you for the actual .mp3 file of copyrighted music on your server. You are the owner of the webserver, and thus control the files on it, along with your knowledge of building an App that allows users to upload the files. Even if you claim to know nothing about what users upload with the App you built, the music files are on your server.</p>\n\n<p>What happens also depends on where the server with the music files is located, i.e. in the UK (action against you legally possible), or elsewhere (legal action against depends on the country and their laws and agreements with other countries).</p>\n\n<p>If your server is in a third-party country and can't be taken down, but you are a UK resident, the music companies can still go after you in other respects, as the paying owner of the server, the owner of the domain registration, even possibly as the creator of the App itself.</p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "internet", "licensing", "software", "music" ]

[ { "answer_id": 6398, "body": "<p>There are several possible ways to get there, but the answer is \"there is no such position.\"</p>\n\n<h1>Acting President vs. President</h1>\n\n<p>Under the Constitution:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, <strong>the same</strong> shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then <strong>act</strong> as President, and such officer shall <strong>act</strong> accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>When William Henry Harrison died, there was some question as to what \"the same\" that devolved on Tyler (his VP) meant. Some thought it meant that Tyler was Acting President; others thought the office itself went to Tyler. Tyler was in the latter group, and set a precedent that the VP <em>became</em> the President (finishing out the President's term) if the President died; the VP wasn't just acting. The 25th Amendment later clarified that presidential death, removal, or resignation made the VP the President; if the President was unable to exercise the powers and duties of the office, the VP was Acting President.</p>\n\n<p>Further down the line, the Constitution explicitly says Congress decides \"who shall act as President.\" Congress only talks about succession further down the line in terms of the Acting President and the officer acting as President. So, if that interpretation is correct, the answer is \"the VP is the only officer who can assume the office of President in the event of the President's death.\" Of course, a new precedent could potentially be set if this situation ever arises; if someone will definitely act as President until the end of the term, then it makes a certain amount of sense to say they just assume the office itself. </p>\n\n<h1>Eligibility for office</h1>\n\n<p>The Constitution doesn't say \"you can't be <em>elected</em> President unless over 35, natural-born citizen, and 14 years a resident.\" It says you are not eligible for the office unless you meet those requirements. That would include any way of assuming the office, including succession. You can't become President if you are not eligible to hold the office, period (that's what eligibility for an office <em>means</em>); the only requirements you'd get around are those covering eligibility to be elected.</p>\n\n<h1>Succession</h1>\n\n<p>It's unclear whether the Constitution's eligibility requirements apply to a person acting as President who does not assume the office. However, Congress has decided that they should. <a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/19\">3 USC &sect;19</a>, which sets out who acts as President if both President and VP are unable to, says:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>(e) Subsections (a), (b), and (d) of this section [i.e. the ones listing people who can act as President] shall apply only to such officers as are eligible to the office of President under the Constitution.</p>\n</blockquote>\n", "score": 12 } ]

[ "united-states", "constitutional-law", "us-constitution" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7274, "body": "<p>Those countries have more restrictive gambling laws than others.<br>\nFor discussion of some of those relevant laws, see <a href=\"https://www.dlapiper.com/~/media/Files/Insights/Publications/2014/03/Prize_Promotions_of_the_World_Handbook_booklet_V12.pdf\" rel=\"noreferrer\">here</a>.<br>\nFor example, </p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>[In Hong Kong], \"Under the Gambling Ordinance, a prize draw is considered to be a form of lottery. Lotteries include raffles &amp; sweepstakes...<br>\n In most cases, prior approval is needed for a prize draw in the form of a licence and for the majority of competitions, this will need to be in the form of a Trade Promotion Competition Licence.\n Selling, disposing, printing and publishing tickets without a licence are criminal offences ... punishable by fines or imprisonment.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Because of Italy's strict restrictions,</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Unless a promotion falls under one of exceptions provided by the DPR, it is not possible to run multi-jurisdictional promotions, they need to be addressed only to people located in Italy and any activity, including the server, used for the promotion must be located in Italy.</p>\n</blockquote>\n", "score": 8 } ]

[ "international", "terms-of-service", "lotteries", "sweepstakes" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7260, "body": "<p><em>Normally</em>, the overwhelming majority of contracts <strong>do not</strong> have liability waivers. When you last bought your petrol, groceries, went to a restaurant or bought a cup of coffee did you sign a liability waiver? I didn't think so.</p>\n\n<p>In the absence of a liability waiver, parties to a contract and liable for the damage that a breach of that contract causes the other party. In addition they are liable for the damage any tort the commit has on the other party. This is the standard common law position.</p>\n\n<p>In addition, statute law often puts additional obligations on a party to a contract: merchantability and fitness for purpose being classic examples. These may either be implicit terms of the contract so breaching them is a breach of contract or they may be statutory obligations so that breaching them allows damages for a statutory (rather than contractual) breach. Usually, these terms are not excludable.</p>\n\n<p>There is a limit to what a liability waiver can waive. At common law, if the waiver is so onerous that it amounts to unconscionable conduct then it is unenforceable. Similarly, there are statutes that limit what can be waived: negligence, for example, is usually not something that can be excluded.</p>\n\n<p>The scope of damage recoverable includes direct and consequential damage (including pure economic loss and, in some jurisdictions, punitive damages). The normal legal concepts of causation - the damage must flow from the breach and proximity - the damage must be close enough that it is reasonably foreseeable, apply. The consequences of any valid limitation of liability are then applied to knock out some forms of damage. </p>\n\n<p>Let's consider your contract with the restaurant. If you eat the meal and contract salmonella poisoning then the restaurant has broken the contract by providing food that was neither merchantable or fit for purpose and has may have been negligent to boot.</p>\n\n<p>The damages recoverable for either cause of action include:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>your medical bills</li>\n<li>your lost income while recovering</li>\n<li>another meal or a refund</li>\n<li>punitive damages (maybe)</li>\n<li>if you die from salmonella, your funeral expenses and compensation to your family</li>\n<li>your legal costs</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>They would not include:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>Your family's and friends' travelling expenses to visit you in hospital</li>\n<li>compensation if you die as a result of mistreatment of the salmonella </li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>These are too remote.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "contract-law", "liability" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7259, "body": "<p>Notwithstanding that there was no contract signed, there was a contract. All the <a href=\"https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/6263/what-is-a-contract-and-what-is-required-for-them-to-be-valid\">elements</a> required are there.</p>\n\n<p>What is not clear, because it was not a matter addressed by the contract, is who owns the copyright in the code, that is, who owns the program files (the blog entries will belong to the person who wrote them)? In the absence of a contractual provision the common law says they belong to the creator. </p>\n\n<p>If the contract were an employment contract (work for hire) then the copyright belongs to the employer. When you say \"the radio personality paid the guy for his extra work\" do you mean that he was paid overtime as part of his normal job? If so then the copyright belongs to the employer. If not, that is, he was paid say a fixed fee to design the web site, then the copyright belongs to the creator because he is a contractor, not an employee, for this purpose.</p>\n\n<p>Needless to say this is messy. While there was a \"legally binding agreement\" it is not clear what was agreed. There are arguments available to both parties that they are the copyright holder and that the files legally belong to them.</p>\n\n<p>A legal remedy is uncertain and expensive - rewrite the code.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "contract-law" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7253, "body": "<p>Intellectual property is <em>property</em> and the owner can do all the things that can be done with property including selling it, gifting it and bequeathing it. It can also be licensed; the closest analogue to normal property being renting or lending it except you can license to more than one person at a time.</p>\n\n<p>The current owner can do anything the original owner could do with it. </p>\n\n<p>Transfer of ownership does not affect the duration or status of the rights at all.</p>\n", "score": 5 } ]

[ "copyright" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7252, "body": "<p>Massachusetts require you to change the car registration, title, and insurance within <a href=\"https://www.massrmv.com/rmv/regs/reg4.htm\" rel=\"nofollow\">30 days</a> of becoming a resident. </p>\n\n<p>One argument for changing over is that your insurance company may not be thrilled if you are in an accident and they discover that 1) the car's \"home\" is not what is on the policy and 2) the amount you're driving has changed.</p>\n\n<p>A possible exception is if your parents can still claim you as a dependent. </p>\n\n<p>However, you say that the apartment is only temporary, but that's just a plan. A lot of things can happen in a year that may derail your current plans (job loss, break up, can't find a house, illness). </p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "massachusetts", "rhode-island" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7248, "body": "<p>I understand that you are wondering why illegal immigrants are not more often deported by the authorities. This answer has grown a bit out of proportion because I also try to explore the general refugee situation. That seems appropriate because the large number of migrants makes the question of deportation more pressing. We would not be very concerned about just a handful.</p>\n\n<h1>Numbers</h1>\n\n<p>First of all, while in 2015 about a million migrants entered Germany, only <a href=\"http://www.bamf.de/SharedDocs/Anlagen/DE/Downloads/Infothek/Statistik/Asyl/statistik-anlage-teil-4-aktuelle-zahlen-zu-asyl.pdf?__blob=publicationFile\" rel=\"nofollow\">282,000 asylum requests were decided;</a> a lot of them probably dated from 2014 (the asylum seekers often needed weeks to even file their request due to adminstrative overload). Of those 282,000, 90,000 were rejected. The others have been granted asylum or refugee status (there is apparently some distinction). This means that the vast majority of (\"true\" or \"alleged\") refugees who came to Germany in 2015 are waiting for their request to be processed.</p>\n\n<h1>Legal And Police Situation</h1>\n\n<p>Did many of those 90,000 stay in the country? I don't know. Possibly. Some may still be tolerated (\"geduldet\"), i.e. the deportation may have been postponed according to <a href=\"http://dejure.org/gesetze/AufenthG/60a.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">par. 60a AufenthlatsG</a>. The remaining ones are indeed obligated to leave the country. They are informed of the decision and have to leave within a period of time between 7 and 30 days. If they don't leave, they will be subject to criminal prosecution because they violate <a href=\"http://dejure.org/gesetze/AufenthG/95.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">par. 95 of the Aufenthaltsgesetz.</a> Of course it's usually not known to the authorities that somebody is still &mdash; illegally &mdash; in the country. Short of raids or coincidental run-ins with the police, e.g. because of traffic violations, illegal immigrants fly under the radar here like in all other countries (I suppose you are aware of the current discussion in the U.S.).</p>\n\n<p>I assume that illegal immigrants are not high on the priority list of the police, given that the cost/benefit ratio of actively searching them is probably quite bad; criminals solely due to status violations don't do much damage as such, compared to other criminals. One must assume though that some of the illegal immigrants will steal or deal drugs for a living, since they cannot officially work or receive subsidies; that exposes them to the authorities as much as other criminals, making it more likely to be caught.</p>\n\n<h1>Deportation</h1>\n\n<p>So the question which remains is what happens to the relatively small portion of migrants who are here illegally and who are found out. It seems easy: Deport them! The law provides the option to deport them without notice (because they would flee upon receiving a notice). </p>\n\n<h3>Deportation to the EU Border State</h3>\n\n<p>Migrants coming through other European Union countries should be processed at the port of entry, according to the <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Regulation\" rel=\"nofollow\">Dublin Regulation</a>. That was how Germany, with no external borders, cowardly used to shield itself from migrants. There is some legal debate whether an asylum seeker who against all Dublin Regulations reaches Germany (or even just the German border) can legally be turned away. A legal scholar in an interview in the current Spiegel magazine claims that every request must, according to European law, be at least checked first before the asylum seeker could be sent back to the port of entry. </p>\n\n<p>The big problem here is that the current crisis overwhelmed the EU border countries, in particular the already struggling Greece (which has only 11 million citizens). German courts have forbidden to send asylum seekers back to Greece and a few Balcan countries because of their dysfunctional asylum processing.</p>\n\n<p>Apart from the legal situation everybody just acknowledges that the Dublin Regulations were not meant to deal with the current number of refugees. </p>\n\n<p>Therefore, sending refugees back to Greece is currently not an option. </p>\n\n<p>That means asylum seekers will have their requests processed in Germany for now, a procedure which takes many months. There are no new numbers; mid-2015 the time was already about 5 months. Now it seems that you need already months to just file the request. The administration is hopelessly understaffed. New clerks need substantial legal and adminsitrative education so that it takes months or years from the top-level budget decision for new positions to when they are put to work. </p>\n\n<h3>Deportation to Their Home Country</h3>\n\n<p>Back to the question where to deport illegal migrants to.</p>\n\n<p>For citizens of safe countries, that seems obvious. (As discussed, migrants from unsafe countries will be granted refugee status, or they will at least be temporarily tolerated.) But the migrants often destroy their papers and simply refuse to tell where they come from. Some countries flatly refuse to provide replacement documents for their own citizens; they also refuse to take anybody without papers back, effectively making it impossible to deport migrants to them who do not cooperate. That seems to be the case for some North African countries (cf. <a href=\"http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/fluechtlinge-aus-marokko-und-algerien-im-fokus-der-bundesregierung-a-1072599.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">this German Spiegel article</a>). The German government will probably have to pay the countries in exchange for them to take their citizens back. </p>\n\n<p>Of course, deportations happen, and they are not pretty. Looking a little closer, a multitude of practical and legal problems emerge. First there is the fairly extreme effort to charter a flight and provide a couple police men, a doctor etc. to accompany the person. The migrants are frequently desperate, some hurt themselves to a degree which makes it impossible to transport them. If they are too desperate or violent, the pilots may not fly for safety or ethical concerns. Other passengers complain on regular flights. Doctors refuse to cooperate, or testify suicidal tendencies. Migrants have suffocated in police custody during a deportation attempt. </p>\n\n<h1>Conclusion</h1>\n\n<h3>Legal Situation</h3>\n\n<p>I cannot see a wide-spread disregard for the law by the German government. If anybody is violating European law, it's Greece and possibly some Balkan states on the migration land route. But in all reality these smaller countries are totally overwhelmed, so the situation is more a factual impossibility to obey the law, which cannot be helped as long as the facts are what they are. </p>\n\n<p>Note that the Dublin Regulations do not <em>forbid</em> Germany to welcome immigrants or accept requests for asylum. On the contrary: according to the legal scholar in the Spiegel magazine Germany has an obligation to at least minimally process asylum requests, once the asylum seekers have reached the border. (And since sending them back is not an option, the request is processed in Germany entirely.) There is no violation of the law there.</p>\n\n<h3>Practical Aspects of Deportation; Alternatives</h3>\n\n<p>At the end of the day forced deportations are an expensive, undignified, violent affair; I would simply consider it unsuitable for mass deportations. The authorities quickly reach the limit of what is doable with the current budget, personnel, and with respect to human rights &mdash; there is a legal and ethical limit to applicable violence against basically peaceful individuals. (I assume that Donald Trump has no idea what he is talking about when it gets to the ground work. \"He has a big mouth and nothing behind it\", as we say here.)</p>\n\n<p>Bottom line: If somebody doesn't want to leave, there is little you can do in a free country. I do not think that the government has deliberately decided to ignore the law; it's rather that the law is hard to enforce. That happens a lot, if you think of it.</p>\n\n<p>If one is adamant at making migrants leave, the only mass solution I can envision is to <strong>make it attractive to leave.</strong> I can imagine that 10,000 or 20,000 Euros per person is a sufficient incentive for migrants who did not flee from acute danger. I also think that it would be a good deal, long-term.</p>\n\n<p>Of course one will have to ensure that the migrants indeed leave, and do not come back too soon, or nothing would be gained. One could perhaps pay the premium through the governments of their home country, possibly in the form of real estate or a pension. That would combine an incentive for the home countries with one for their citizens.</p>\n\n<p>This economical calculus would only work if the home countries stayed stable for an extended period of time (or the returned migrants would have to migrate again, this time with a good reason). It must be the goal of the European countries to aim at stability in those regions. But that is the goal anyway, I hope; its importance was fairly prominent in recent months.</p>\n", "score": 6 }, { "answer_id": 5790, "body": "<p><a href=\"http://www.buzer.de/gesetz/4752/a65956.htm\" rel=\"nofollow\">§23 AufenthG</a>: The German government (basically the Secretary of the Interior) can grant refugee status or asylum if it feels that humanitarian reasons <em>or the political interests of Germany</em> make that necessary. The latter is a political judgement. </p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "germany", "immigration", "borders" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7242, "body": "<p><strong>No</strong></p>\n<p>If the clause is valid and still in force it doesn't matter who initiated the approach; if you engage in any activity that could entice them to your new employer you are in breach.</p>\n<p>See <a href=\"http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201303/01/post-employment_non-solicitation_restraints_when_does_solicitation_occur.page\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Barrett &amp; Ors v Ecco Personnel Pty Ltd [1998] NSWSC 545</a></p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>One may acknowledge that in most instances the first approach will be made by the ex-employee to the former customer. Common sense however demands that this not be the exclusive means by which a solicitation may occur.</p>\n<p>A simple illustration will suffice as to why this is so. Assume a customer finds out, quite accidentally, that a former employee with whom it dealt, had left his principal and established a business of his own and says `let us have a proposal'. The ex-employee then submits a proposal in very favourable terms and makes a presentation to the client which convinces it to award the contract to him. Should the fact of the first approach negative any solicitation or enticing away? I think not.</p>\n</blockquote>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "contract-law", "employment" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7239, "body": "<p>While there is no legal requirement to provide assistance, there is in many jurisdictions no liability shield protecting an ordinary civilian (not police/fire/EMS) if their actions cause harm. If you witness someone having a heart attack, and you give CPR and by doing so crack a rib, you can be held liable for some or all of the resulting medical bills for said rib, or even for the heart attack itself if you get the wrong judge and jury on the wrong day.</p>\n\n<p>Case in point, if you're holding the net at any point (and are thus a \"good Samaritan\"), but then release your hold on the net with no opportunity for a replacement, resulting in harm to the person jumping/falling, you can be held liable for that damage. Without a shield law, all the plaintiff would have to prove is that your action was the proximate cause of his harm (that had you not dropped the net, he would have been significantly less harmed, or unharmed). A fairly low bar, frnakly.</p>\n\n<p>\"Good Samaritan\" laws generally provide immunity from liability in cases where a reasonable person would have done the same thing you did. That raises the bar for the plaintiff, as they must now prove negligence; that your actions are not what a reasonable person would have done because said reasonable person would have recognized too great a risk of additional harm.</p>\n\n<p>Some states, not all, have this shield law. In a few of those states, case law has lowered the threshold to demonstrate negligent behavior, significantly weakening the protection of the law (the case law for instance may assume a \"reasonable man\" attempting to give CPR has taken a CPR course, identifying an inherent risk in an untrained person doing it, so attempting to give CPR without having taken the course is negligence in itself).</p>\n", "score": 2 }, { "answer_id": 7241, "body": "<p>If your chairlift was on a ski slope in <strong>Vermont</strong> (apparently unique among states in this regard), and the reason why you let go was arbitrary (e.g. it was not to protect you or someone else from danger or avoid interference with emergency officials' duties), you could be fined up to $100. That would also be true if you stood by without holding the net in the first place, as long as doing so was needed and would have been reasonable and not dangerous nor interfering with the officials. </p>\n\n<p><a href=\"http://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/section/12/023/00519\" rel=\"nofollow\">Vermont Title 12, Chapter 23, section 519</a> on Emergency Medical Care:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>(a) A person who knows that another is exposed to grave physical harm shall, to the extent that the same can be rendered without danger or peril to himself or without interference with important duties owed to others, give reasonable assistance to the exposed person unless that assistance or care is being provided by others.<br>\n ...<br>\n (c) A person who willfully violates subsection (a) of this section shall be fined not more than $100.00. (1967, No. 309 (Adj. Sess.), §§ 2-4, eff. March 22, 1968.)</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Section (b) is part of Vermont's liability shield for Good Samaritans, there's more <a href=\"http://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/section/24/071/02687\" rel=\"nofollow\">here</a>. </p>\n", "score": 0 } ]

[ "common-law", "good-samaritan" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7207, "body": "<p>Maybe, depending on exactly what happened and where it happened.</p>\n<p>In Arizona, <a href=\"http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/00107.htm&amp;Title=13&amp;DocType=ARS\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">there is no statute of limitations for sexual assault</a>.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>A prosecution for ... any offense that is listed in chapter 14 or 35.1 of this title and that is a class 2 felony ... may be commenced at any time.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Chapter 14 is titled &quot;Sexual offenses&quot;, while 35.1 is &quot;Sexual exploitation of children&quot;. It's likely that whatever happened will be covered by one of those two chapters.</p>\n<p>The situation in Illinois <a href=\"http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt%2E+3&amp;ActID=1876&amp;ChapterID=53&amp;SeqStart=5200000&amp;SeqEnd=6100000\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">is somewhat more complicated</a>:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>(720 ILCS 5/3-5) (from Ch. 38, par. 3-5)</p>\n<p>Sec. 3-5. General Limitations.</p>\n<p>(b) Unless the statute describing the offense provides otherwise, or the period of limitation is extended by Section 3-6, a prosecution for any offense not designated in Subsection (a) must be commenced within 3 years after the commission of the offense if it is a felony, or within one year and 6 months after its commission if it is a misdemeanor.</p>\n<p>(720 ILCS 5/3-6) Extended limitations.</p>\n<p>(j) (1) When the victim is under 18 years of age at the time of the offense, a prosecution for criminal sexual assault, aggravated criminal sexual assault, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual abuse, or felony criminal sexual abuse may be commenced at any time when corroborating physical evidence is available or an individual who is required to report an alleged or suspected commission of any of these offenses under the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act fails to do so.</p>\n<p>(2) In circumstances other than as described in paragraph (1) of this subsection (j), when the victim is under 18 years of age at the time of the offense, a prosecution for criminal sexual assault, aggravated criminal sexual assault, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual abuse, or felony criminal sexual abuse, or a prosecution for failure of a person who is required to report an alleged or suspected commission of any of these offenses under the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act may be commenced within 20 years after the child victim attains 18 years of age.</p>\n<p>(3) When the victim is under 18 years of age at the time of the offense, a prosecution for misdemeanor criminal sexual abuse may be commenced within 10 years after the child victim attains 18 years of age.</p>\n<p>(4) Nothing in this subdivision (j) shall be construed to shorten a period within which a prosecution must be commenced under any other provision of this Section.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Depending on what happened, the statute of limitations may have expired eight or nine years ago (unlikely -- the above list looks fairly comprehensive), or she has until either her 28th or 38th birthday to file charges.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "united-states", "sexual-assault", "statute-of-limitations" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7201, "body": "<p>No</p>\n\n<p>A government performing the functions of government (like issuing a visa) is not in a contractural relationship with the person they are doing it for so there is no basis in contract law for such a suit.</p>\n\n<p>It might be arguable that they were negligent, however, first they would have to agree to be sued as they have sovereign immunity, secondly you would need to prove that they owed you a duty of care which I am far from sure they do and thirdly you would need to prove that they breached it which I don't think they did.</p>\n", "score": 3 }, { "answer_id": 7233, "body": "<p>No. If you need a Visa, don't travel until you have it. The government is not bound to process requests within a certain time frame. Whatever time frame you were provided was in good faith. In my experience they usually beat their own estimate.</p>\n", "score": 0 } ]

[ "consumer-protection", "f1-visa" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7214, "body": "<p>My psychologist in MN said they could do it, but insurance requires you to physically be in the same state.</p>\n", "score": 1 }, { "answer_id": 7231, "body": "<p>There would be a licensing problem. Find a therapist you can actually visit would be my suggestion, and purely a personal opinion.</p>\n", "score": 0 } ]

[ "health" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7217, "body": "<p>Draw a line through it, rip it up and throw it out. In particular cross out your signature.</p>\n\n<p>A contract is not formed until your acceptance of the offer is communicated to the other party.</p>\n", "score": 0 }, { "answer_id": 7230, "body": "<p>This sounds like an application for tenancy. It isn't a contract but you certainly do not want to lie on it. If you haven't given it to the apartment owner or management agent, tear it up and throw it away. If they already have it or a copy of it, write to them by U.S.Mail or email and tell them some things have changed and ask how to proceed to get your records corrected.</p>\n\n<p>If it is actually a lease document, if you are the only one who has signed it, it is not a contract. Therefore tear it up and throw it away. </p>\n\n<p>These are my personal opinions, not professional legal advice.</p>\n", "score": 0 } ]

[ "contract-law" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7223, "body": "<p>NDA provisions in general are rather similar. In particular the ones covering the exceptions to the confidentiality obligations required to the receiving party.\nSuch provisions normally have the following wording (more or less):\nInformation shall not be treated as Confidential if:\n- at the time of disclosure is already in the public domain or becomes available to the public w/o breach by receiving party;\n- the receiving party receives it from a third party free to lawfully disclose such information;\n- was in the prior lawfull possession of the receiving party;\n- was independently developed by the receiving party; \n- is approved to be released by the disclosing party; or \n- the receiving party is required by law to disclose in response to a valid order of a court or by a government agency.</p>\n\n<p>Your particular case might not necessarily fall under any of this exceptions (i do not know the exact wording of the NDA you're referring to) but in any case, please note that simply telling a third party that you are discussing the development of \"an app similar to x but with a better UX and simpler design\", might already be considered as a breach of confidentiality.\nSurely the NDA is identified as being Confidential itself and it probably also contains a section saying something like: \"This Agreement and its contents shall be treated as Confidential Information\".</p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "contract-law", "patents", "non-compete" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7210, "body": "<p>No</p>\n\n<p>This is a derivative of a copyright work and you need the permission of the copyright owner. </p>\n\n<p>For music in most countries and the US in particular there is a statutory royalty scheme for performers so you can pay to do this.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "copyright", "music" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7157, "body": "<p>Possibly negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter. Really dependson the state where this happens and the exact elements that need to be proven. Lester has asked his wife to do something that he knows might result in her death and does not warn her. He probably has a duty to warn her.</p>\n", "score": 5 }, { "answer_id": 7215, "body": "<p>Although I am neither a US-citizen nor a practitioner of jurisprudence (crimothy or otherwise), I will stick my neck out and argue that a charge of involuntary manslaughter or negligent homocide is incorrect because it implies the absence of criminal intent. Instead I would suggest Lester is guilty of aiding and abetting murder.</p>\n\n<p>My reasoning is that Lester's appears to possess a mens rea that falls within the purview of the doctrine of accomplice liability: </p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>The classic model of accomplice liability requires that an accomplice\n intends to promote or facilitate the commission of an offense and,\n consequently with this intent, aids the principal actor. This intent\n requirement ensures that the accomplice has a stake in the principal's\n acts; in effect, the accomplice makes the acts his or her own. Since\n the accomplice's conscious objective is that the underlying crime be\n committed, and thus aids in its commission, it is fair to hold the\n accomplice as criminally culpable as the principal.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p><a href=\"http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1315&amp;context=lawfaculty\" rel=\"nofollow\">http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1315&amp;context=lawfaculty</a></p>\n\n<p>I'm sure that Lester would prefer that nobody be murdered. However, his actions and omissions facilitate a murder. By having Linda go the office, Lester at the very least demonstrates an awareness that there is a threat to safety. If someone has to die, he most certainly would prefer that it not be him. This might be reminiscent of negligent homicide were we to end it there.</p>\n\n<p>Far more telling of Lester's complicity is that he has his wife don his parka while blind to the threat that doing so poses. We note that he has Linda place the hood over her face. This makes him an accomplice to murder because his actions cause Lorne to murder \"Lester\" — or more accurately -- someone bearing his likeness. This murder is far less likely to have been carried out had Lorne not misidentified her as Lester. That Lester is the intended victim of this crime need not render moot his complicity in the commission of this crime.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "criminal-law", "murder" ]

[ { "answer_id": 201, "body": "<p>There are two separate questions here, it seems to me.</p>\n\n<p>First: are law enforcement officers required to respect your house rules and avoid making a mess? At least in the United States, the answer is unequivocally no. If the only \"damage\" suffered is that you need to sweep the floor, or put your clothes back in drawers, that's not the police's problem. You have not suffered any damages that a court is going to reimburse, and your best case scenario, even if you win a suit against the police, is an award of one dollar as nominal damages.</p>\n\n<p>Second: are law enforcement officers required to reimburse you for any physical damage they caused while executing the search warrant?</p>\n\n<p>The answer here is tricker, and depends on the search warrant.</p>\n\n<p>If the warrant is invalid, then the answer is yes. But remember: just because, for example, the cops are looking for the guy you bought your house from, who moved out a month ago, that doesn't mean the warrant is \"invalid.\" Just because the cops got a bad tip, or suspected you wrongly, or were in some other way wasting their time--as long as the warrant is technically proper and they were able to convince a judge it was reasonable, the warrant is valid. Even if the warrant is invalid, you may need to sue the police to get anything reimbursed.</p>\n\n<p>If the warrant is valid, in practical terms, you will almost certainly need to sue the police to recover anything, and you will have to show the Court that the police's actions that damaged your property were so extreme that they were outside the reasonable scope of the warrant. For instance: the warrant is for a large item, like a stolen car: the police cannot smash holes in your walls to make sure the car isn't hidden inside. If they're looking for drugs, they may be able to.</p>\n\n<p>If the officers' actions are consistent with the scope of the warrant, then you are not going to recover anything. The warrant is, basically, permission from a judge to enter your home and perform those actions, and they will not be liable for them.</p>\n\n<p>A number of relevant cases are discussed in this article: <a href=\"http://www.aele.org/law/2010all01/2010-1MLJ101.pdf\">http://www.aele.org/law/2010all01/2010-1MLJ101.pdf</a></p>\n", "score": 12 }, { "answer_id": 7197, "body": "<p><strong>TL;DR: No. But maybe there should be.</strong></p>\n\n<p>Here is a Law Review article addressing the sub-question: <a href=\"http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1382&amp;context=wmborj\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Does the Fifth Amendment Mandate Compensation When Property is Damaged During the Course of Police Activities?</a></p>\n\n<p>The author concludes that in practice the remedies offered seem to fall short of the Constitutional mandate:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, along with\n similar provisions in state constitutions, forbids the taking of\n private property by the government for a public use without just\n compensation. Despite this protection, many courts have denied takings\n claims made by innocent third party landowners when police officers\n caused damage to their property during the course of executing their\n official duties. These courts held that the damage was not for a\n \"public use\" in the narrow sense, and have refused to analyze the\n claims under takings jurisprudence. This narrow view of \"public use\"\n ignores the fact that society as a whole benefits from the police\n activity, including any resulting damage to property, while the\n innocent, individual owner alone is forced to bear the burden. This\n Note argues that a broader interpretation of \"public use\" is required\n to redistribute justly and fairly the costs of such burdens to the\n society that benefits from them in order to comport with the mandate\n of the Fifth Amendment.</p>\n</blockquote>\n", "score": 5 } ]

[ "united-states", "search-and-seizure", "fourth-amendment", "remedies" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7187, "body": "<p>Yes and no. [note, the following is all written about US law. In other jurisdictions laws are, of course, different (though usually not drastically so.)]</p>\n\n<p>In the US there are (at least) three different bodies of law that might apply to code: copyright, patents, trade secrets.</p>\n\n<p>Copyright covers original <em>expression</em>. Anything you write is automatically, immediately protected under copyright. The copyright applies to the code itself, and anything \"derived\" from that code. It's up to the courts to decide exactly what \"derived\" means. One case that's long been viewed as a landmark in this area is Gates Rubber v. Bando Chemicals. The <a href=\"http://digital-law-online.info/cases/28PQ2D1503.htm\" rel=\"nofollow\">Court of Appeals for the tenth Circuit decision</a> includes a section titled: \"The Test for Determining Whether the Copyright of a Computer Program Has Been Infringed.\" Note that you can register a copyright, and that can be worthwhile, such as helping recover some damages you can't otherwise.</p>\n\n<p>Patents are quite different from copyrights. Where a copyright covers expression of an idea, a patent covers a specific invention. Rather than being awarded automatically, a patent has to be applied for, and awarded only after the patent office has determined that there's no relevant prior art to prevent it from being awarded. A patent, however, covers things like somebody else independently discovering/inventing what's covered by the patent.</p>\n\n<p>A trade secret could (at least theoretically) apply to some process or procedure embodied in the code. A trade secret mostly applies to a situation where (for example) you're trying to form an alliance with some other company, and in the process tell them things you don't tell the general public. If you've identified the fact that what you're telling them is a trade secret, and they then tell a competitor (or the general public, etc.) or more generally use that information in any way other than the originally intended purpose, it could constitute a trade secret violation. As a side-note: patents and copyright fall under federal law, so they're basically uniform nation-wide. Trade secrets mostly fall under state law, so the exact details vary by state.</p>\n\n<p>Absent a reason to believe otherwise, I'd guess your interest here is primarily in copyright infringement. The key here would be showing that one piece of code was derived from the other. That is, it specifically would <em>not</em> apply in a case where there were only a limited number of ways of doing something, so anybody who wanted to do that had to use one of those ways. Since this would not indicate actual derivation, it would not indicate copyright violation.</p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "intellectual-property" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4917, "body": "<p>Generally not. Federal court uses a principle known as the <em>enrolled bill rule</em> -- in deference to the coequal status of the three branches of government, the \"enrolled bill\" (the thing printed on fancy paper that <em>actually went</em> to the President for signature) is irrebuttable evidence that the law was properly passed. The courts cannot deal with inquiries into whether legislative process was followed; it's the legislature's job to decide what the right process is. They can't even look into whether the same text passed both houses -- as a matter of law, the enrolled bill is conclusive evidence that it did. </p>\n\n<p>Senate rules are enforceable <em>in the Senate</em>. But the Senate is the body in charge of enforcing them, not the courts. </p>\n", "score": 17 }, { "answer_id": 4921, "body": "<ul>\n<li>The senate can change their rules at any time by a majority vote.</li>\n<li>60 (3/5) votes are required to end a filibuster (with the exceptions of federal judge nominees (1/2) and rule change motions (2/3)).</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>So, for your hypothetical to occur, there needs to be an intermediate step where a majority agrees to change the rules to allow a simple majority to <strong><em>cloture</em></strong> the filibuster.</p>\n\n<p>Generally speaking, the senate has resisted changing the 60-vote filibuster rule (with the above mentioned exceptions) because the supermajority requirement protects the interests of the minority party. </p>\n\n<p>Every senator understands they can be in the minority depending upon the outcome of the next election every two years. (Even though each senator is elected every six years, elections are held for 1/3 of the senate every two years.)</p>\n\n<p>Therefore, the filibuster rule protects the interests of all the senators. Which is why they haven't eliminated it and are unlikely to change it for the passage of any particular bill. Although, theoretically, it could happen.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "us-constitution", "legislature", "us-senate", "us-house-of-reps" ]

[ { "answer_id": 6115, "body": "<p>It sounds like you want to have a mitigation hearing. Check number 2 on the ticket and send it in. On the hearing day ask for leniency which is probably going to be a reduced fine. From what you've told us there are no circumstances in your favor, but it can't hurt to try. </p>\n\n<p>Here is some information: <a href=\"http://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/district-court/citations-or-tickets.aspx\" rel=\"nofollow\">http://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/district-court/citations-or-tickets.aspx</a></p>\n", "score": 2 }, { "answer_id": 6116, "body": "<p>There's no fighting a fine where the facts are not in dispute; only asking for clemency. Bring in evidence that you acted in good faith and corrected the infraction as soon as you were alerted to it. If you can determine why you didn't get a renewal application (e.g., did the state have an old address?) that might also justify the oversight.</p>\n\n<p>When I was cited for driving a friend's car that (unbeknownst to me) had expired registration the cop actually said if I renewed it promptly and brought evidence of that to court she wouldn't press the charge. Fifteen minutes later I was in front of a computer printing out a receipt. When I showed up to court a few weeks later and the judge saw the time difference between the citation and the renewal he joked to the cop, \"He renewed it fifteen minutes later? What did you do to him?\" Obviously they're used to dealing with far less attentive citizens.</p>\n", "score": 1 }, { "answer_id": 7186, "body": "<p>It sounds like it might be to late, however read carefully your citation. You have the right to ask for discovery in your case. I would request discovery if it is not too late, sometimes if you ask for a continuance due to other factors this could allow for you to still send a letter of demand for discovery. You would be checking the box to dispute the ticket not mitigate. When and if it arrives you then need to read the law very carefully and try to find an RCW or cite some case law that would excuse you for not having renewed your tabs and then why you continued to drive.</p>\n\n<p>If discovery is not received I believe it is 7 days prior to you trial date, you can move for the case to be dismissed. (hope for this one)</p>\n\n<p>I personally would not try ignorance of the time limit to purchase tabs, or that you were not aware they were expired. </p>\n\n<p>I was able to avoid a parking ticket by explaining to the judge that under the county code rule, I had to be in control of the vehicle when it was parked and therefore also aware of the parking rule as it was posted. </p>\n\n<p>I did not park it there, the police pulled my son over and then took the keys and told me to come to the main station the next day to retrieve my keys. When I arrived the keys were accidently entered into evidence and could not be released until later that afternoon. I then went to my car and called AAA and had them make me a key and I also placed a few quarters in the meter until they arrived.\nSo as soon as I was in control of my car again I paid the meter, prior to that instance, I was not in control of the vehicle. Law followed and case dismissed.</p>\n", "score": 0 } ]

[ "united-states", "traffic", "civil-law" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7176, "body": "<p>In most jurisdictions a peace officer can arrest anyone they have:</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li>a warrant to arrest</li>\n<li>probable cause to arrest, that is, a reasonable belief that that person has committed a crime</li>\n</ol>\n\n<p>They (and others) will conduct investigations to determine if they believe they can secure a conviction. If they do they will lay charges and justice will steer it's majestic course to conviction or acquittal.</p>\n", "score": 4 } ]

[ "police" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7175, "body": "<p>Any or all of A, B, C &amp; D as well as the country of registration of the plane and the country of which the perpetrator and victims were citizens or residents. In addition, there are sub-national jurisdictions (states, provinces etc.) that may be involved.</p>\n\n<p>Just because one jurisdiction has jurisdiction it doesn't mean that others don't also have jurisdiction.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "international", "jurisdiction", "aviation" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7170, "body": "<p>Yes you can do this.</p>\n\n<p>There is no copyright in their name - it lacks the requisite creative effort.</p>\n\n<p>There is trade mark in their name but you are using that trade mark in a way that is permitted - to identify them.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "copyright", "trademark", "fair-use" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7167, "body": "<p><a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prosecution#United_States\" rel=\"nofollow\">Private prosecution of crimes</a> has become increasingly uncommon under common law systems, which have <a href=\"http://law.jrank.org/pages/1855/Prosecution-Comparative-Aspects-decision-prosecute.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">increased deference to public prosecutors</a>.</p>\n\n<p>The U.S. Supreme Court eliminated private prosecution at the federal level in <em><a href=\"https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/454/83/case.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">Leeke v. Timmerman</a></em>, (1981), 452 U.S. 83. The closest exception found in case law appears to be an allowance for a federal court to appoint a private attorney to prosecute a criminal contempt action if the executive refuses to prosecute. (<em><a href=\"https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/481/787/\" rel=\"nofollow\">Young v. U.S. ex rel. Vuitton et Fils</a></em>, (1987)\n481 U.S. 787.)</p>\n\n<p>At least some U.S. states allow \"<a href=\"http://www.jstor.org/stable/796415\" rel=\"nofollow\">Private Challenges to Prosecutorial Inaction</a>.\" These <a href=\"http://isthatlegal.org/private-prosecution/\" rel=\"nofollow\">can take different forms</a>:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Some states do allow a complainant to either file a request for an\n order to show cause or to actually prosecute as a private prosecutor.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>For example, in Pennsylvania, private criminal complaints are forwarded to a public prosecutor. If the public attorney declines to prosecute then <a href=\"http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/234/chapter5/s506.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">the complainant can request a judicial review of that decision</a>. The standard of review almost always requires the petitioner to show that the failure to prosecute was \"<a href=\"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2403806/in-re-wilson/\" rel=\"nofollow\">an abuse of prosecutorial discretion</a>.\" And I can't find any such case in which the complainant prevailed, so it's not certain what the remedy would be in that event. (Our best guess is that the private complainant would be allowed to prosecute the case.)</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1813&amp;context=mulr\" rel=\"nofollow\">Wisconsin</a> provides a similar <a href=\"http://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2012/chapter-968/section-968.02\" rel=\"nofollow\">statutory mechanism for judicial review of prosecutorial inaction</a>. <a href=\"http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1813&amp;context=mulr\" rel=\"nofollow\">This good Law Review article</a> explains the Wisconsin law.</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"http://suffolklawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2004/03/McCormack.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow\">This 2004 Law Review article</a> compares New Hampshire (which does have mechanisms for private prosecution) with Massachusetts (which does not).</p>\n", "score": 2 }, { "answer_id": 6437, "body": "<p>There is no legal duty on any state to pursue criminal prosecution. The legal duty extends only to giving consideration to doing so. If, <strong>after consideration</strong>, they decide not to, then no one can force them to. Case law on this is limited to the court ordering <em>consideration</em> when none was given.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "criminal-law", "civil-law", "civil-procedure", "parliamentary-procedure" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7099, "body": "<p>It would seem that your song is a derived work. You took the original work and found words that sound the same. If the original work had used different words, your work would have ended up differently. So you have a derived work. Same as making a translation; if the original was different, then the translation would be different, so the translation is a derived work. </p>\n\n<p>I was asked \"How is this not straight up infringement\". But it is. Not only copying is an exclusive right of the copyright holder, but also the creation of derivative works. </p>\n", "score": 4 }, { "answer_id": 7077, "body": "<p>There are several things that could potentially be protected by copyright in a musical recording:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>the tune</li>\n<li>the lyrics</li>\n<li>the particular recording</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>If you substantially take any of those as part of another work, you are infringing if the original was protected by copyright.</p>\n\n<p>For any particular work, not all of these are necessarily protected. Somebody may have put original words to an old old folk tune. In that case, the tune is not protected, but the new words are, and so is the new recording of that work.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "copyright", "music" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7155, "body": "<p>This is an outsiders perspective.</p>\n\n<p>Last question first: EU directives do not override UK law. Each member state of the EU is a sovereign nation that has agreed to implement EU directives into their domestic law. It is the domestic law that is primary, however, the EU directive may serve to clarify ambiguity.</p>\n\n<p>As to the particular clause; the relevant clause in the <a href=\"http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/pdfs/ukpga_20150015_en.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow\">Act</a> is 64(1)(b) - not 64(1)(a):</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>the assessment is of the appropriateness of the price payable under the\n contract by comparison with the goods, digital content or services\n supplied under it.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>The specification of the interest rate is clearly to do with \"the appropriateness of the price payable by comparison with the ... services\nsupplied.\"</p>\n\n<p>This would be exempt from the fairness test providing that it was both transparent and prominent. The transparency is probably not in doubt; the question is: is it prominent? </p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>A term is prominent for the purposes of this section if it is brought to the\n consumer’s attention in such a way that an average consumer would be aware\n of the term.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Well, I don't have a copy of your loan document but if this was part of the section on how the interest rate is to be determined then an \"average consumer\" would probably have looked at this section. The fact that you have signed it would typically be taken by a court as pretty strong evidence that you both read and understood the term.</p>\n\n<p>So, on balance, it would appear that this term is not subject to the fairness test. Either, renegotiate this term or find another lender.</p>\n", "score": 1 }, { "answer_id": 7166, "body": "<p>EU directives tell the member countries what kinds of laws they should introduce, or how they should change their existing laws. However, what counts for you in the UK is the actual UK law. EU directives are not law. </p>\n\n<p>You have the right to feel unhappy if the UK doesn't implement a EU directive as directed but nobody can force the UK to implement these directives or to implement them completely. </p>\n", "score": 0 } ]

[ "contract-law", "european-union" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7075, "body": "<p>There are two common defenses to defamation (there are others):</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li>That what you said is true.</li>\n<li>That what you said cannot be reasonably interpreted as a factual claim.</li>\n</ol>\n\n<p>If after examining the totality of the circumstances, a fact-finder (judge or jury) sees your statement to be an expression of opinion rather than a factual claim about the subject, you would not be found to have defamed the subject.</p>\n\n<p>The opinion defence doesn't have a bright line rule. In your example, I think it is clearly on the side of opinion. However, if you were to say something like \"Douglas Dunce, Apple's Chief Engineer, has an IQ of 76\", that would be almost certainly be deemed a factual claim.</p>\n\n<p>The leading case here is <em><a href=\"https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/497/1/\" rel=\"nofollow\">Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.</a></em> The court held that \"<em>statements that cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts about an individual are protected</em>\".</p>\n\n<p>Other summaries of this defence:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li><p><a href=\"http://www.defamationlawblog.com/2009/01/fact-vs-opinion-setting-the-record-straight/\" rel=\"nofollow\">http://www.defamationlawblog.com/2009/01/fact-vs-opinion-setting-the-record-straight/</a></p></li>\n<li><p><a href=\"http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news-media-law/news-media-and-law-summer-2011/opinion-defense-remains-str\" rel=\"nofollow\">http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news-media-law/news-media-and-law-summer-2011/opinion-defense-remains-str</a></p></li>\n</ul>\n", "score": 8 } ]

[ "libel" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7162, "body": "<p>Unless there is a term in your contract that time bars late invoices you have to pay providing it was ladled within the statute of limitations wherever you are. The shortest SoL I have ever encountered is 4 years so that is unlikely to help?</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "united-states", "contract-law" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7127, "body": "<h1>Ties</h1>\n\n<p>In the case of a 4-4 tie, the decision from the lower court is left as-is, and the opinion sets no precedent that would bind other circuits.</p>\n\n<p>The opinions in tied cases are generally very short, simply stating that the court was equally divided. For example, in <em><a href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/08-1423.pdf\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Omega, S. A. \n562 U.S. ___ (2010)</a></em>, Justice Kagan recused herself due to prior involvement with the case when she was with the Justice Department. The court split 4-4. This was the entirety of the <em><a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_curiam_decision\" rel=\"noreferrer\">per curiam</a></em> opinion:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Per Curiam.</p>\n \n <p>The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.</p>\n \n <p>Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>In another example, <em><a href=\"https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/484/1/case.html\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Reagan v. Abourezk, 484 U.S. 1 (1987)</a></em>, the court tied 3-3 (<a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1\" rel=\"noreferrer\">quorum is six</a>). There was a vacancy due to the retirement of Justice Powell; Justices Blackmun and Scalia recused themselves.</p>\n\n<h1>History and congressional support</h1>\n\n<p>Edward A. Hartnett, in <em><a href=\"http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol44/iss2/4/\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Ties in the Supreme Court of the United States</a></em>, gives a historical account of this practice. This is a practice established by the court itself, not by direction of Congress, but Congress has \"presupposed the existence of the rule of affirmance by an equally divided court\". Hartnett points to <a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2109\" rel=\"noreferrer\">28 U.S. Code § 2109</a>. That section relates to quorum, but notes that if the court fails to achieve quorum:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>[...] the court shall enter its order affirming the judgment of the court from which the case was brought for review <em>with the same effect as upon affirmance by an equally divided court</em>.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<h1>In cases of original jurisdication</h1>\n\n<p>The situation is not so clear for <em><a href=\"http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1135407\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Original Jurisdiction Deadlocks</a></em>. In these cases, there is no lower court ruling to affirm. There have been only two original jurisdiction deadlocks. Michael Coenen summarizes:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>First, in the nineteenth century case of <em>Virginia v. West Virginia</em>,\n Chief Justice Chase announced that the Justices were “equally divided on the demurrer, and equally divided also upon the order which should be made in consequence of that division.” As a result, the matter stood unresolved for nearly three years.</p>\n \n <p>Second, in the twentieth-century disbarment action of <em>In re Isserman</em>, the Court split evenly on the question of disbarment but ordered disbarment anyway. One year later, the Court changed its mind and overruled its prior decision.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<h1>Avoiding ties</h1>\n\n<p>The court has a few internal things they can do to avoid ties. They could delay issuing an opinion on a case and ask for re-argument by the parties in front of the eventual nine-justice court. They could revisit the case in conference and get votes to shift around based on a more narrow or procedural ruling. In both of these situations, we wouldn't necessarily know that there was an internal deadlock.</p>\n", "score": 35 } ]

[ "us-supreme-court" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7154, "body": "<p>There are 196 sovereign nations in the world (more or less); each of them has its own copyright laws. 168 are signatories of the <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Berne Convention</a> which requires them to extend to foreign copyright holders at least the same rights that they would have domestically. It relies from this on the concept of country of origin. Assuming that the book was originally published in the UK (as it has a London based publisher) then the applicable copyright law is that of the UK.</p>\n<p>Exceptions to copyright can be found <a href=\"https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">here</a>. The relevant exemption is the first part of the <em>Teaching</em> section:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>the copying of works in any medium as long as the use is solely to illustrate a point, it is not done for commercial purposes, it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement, and the use is fair dealing.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Acknowledgement is pretty straightforward but <em>fair dealing</em> as a legal concept means:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>There is no statutory definition of fair dealing - it will always be a matter of fact, degree and impression in each case. The question to be asked is: how would a fair-minded and honest person have dealt with the work?</p>\n<p>Factors that have been identified by the courts as relevant in determining whether a particular dealing with a work is fair include:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>does using the work affect the market for the original work? If a use of a work acts as a substitute for it, causing the owner to lose revenue, then it is not likely to be fair</li>\n<li>is the amount of the work taken reasonable and appropriate? Was it necessary to use the amount that was taken? Usually only part of a work may be used</li>\n</ul>\n<p>The relative importance of any one factor will vary according to the case in hand and the type of dealing in question.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>If the work had been simultaneously or previously published in the USA the relevant consideration is <em>fair use</em> rather than <em>fair dealing</em>. Fair use typically gives the copier much greater latitude than fair dealing does.</p>\n<p>As to the specifics of posting on stack exchange. Extracts on SE are unlikely to affect the original market (they may even enhance it by serving as advertising) so providing that you have used the minimum amount necessary to illuminate your answer it is probably fair dealing (and fair use). This would probably be true even if, across tens of thousands of questions, the entire book were quoted.</p>\n<p>Notwithstanding, if the copyright owner issued SE with a take down notice they would take it down because they are not in the business of fighting protracted copyright cases even if they are in the right.</p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "copyright" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7136, "body": "<p><a href=\"https://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/1646/is-it-possible-to-distinguish-a-securely-encrypted-ciphertext-from-random-noise\">It isn't true that modern encryption necessarily makes messages indistinguishable from random noise</a>.</p>\n\n<p>However, let's assume that this is true, for the sake of your question.</p>\n\n<p>It depends on how the statute is written, but a reasonable one would not make it a crime to send random noise.</p>\n\n<p>It could be enforced by proving that you did the encryption, and then sent what you encrypted across a communication channel. They could have undercover operatives waiting to be sent encrypted material. The encryption system that a user chooses to use might not be as secure as advertised (making it very easy to distinguish from noise if you know its weakness). </p>\n\n<p>If <em>all</em> the government had was access to the communication channel and listened there, then you're right, it would be hard to prove and enforce, but they have access to more than that.</p>\n", "score": 6 } ]

[ "internet", "cryptography" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7091, "body": "<p>The closest case to this is <em>Brady v. United States 397 U.S. 742 (1970)</em>:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>We here make no reference to the situation where the prosecutor or judge, or both, deliberately employ their charging and sentencing powers to induce a particular defendant to tender a plea of guilty. In Brady' case, there is no claim that the prosecutor threatened prosecution on a charge not justified by the evidence or that the trial judge threatened Brady with a harsher sentence if convicted after trial in order to induce him to plead guilty.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>In <em>Brady</em>, had he not entered a guilty plea, he would have been risking the death penalty. The court recognized:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>It may be that Brady, faced with a strong case against him and recognizing that his chances for acquittal were slight, preferred to plead guilty, and thus limit the penalty to life imprisonment, rather than to elect a jury trial which could result in a death penalty.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>They upheld the plea:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Although Brady's plea of guilty may well have been motivated in part by a desire to avoid a possible death penalty, we are convinced that his plea was voluntarily and intelligently made, and we have no reason to doubt that his solemn admission of guilt was truthful.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>So, even in the case where the risk of a death penalty may have motivated a guilty plea, the plea has been upheld.</p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>All of the above is with respect to actions of the prosecution. In any case, the main test is whether the defendant entered a plea voluntarily and intelligently.</p>\n", "score": 4 }, { "answer_id": 7138, "body": "<p>An alternate interpretation of the verb \"promise\" is:</p>\n\n<p>\"<em>In my considered opinion</em>, the prosecutors will seek a 25 year sentence, and again, <em>in my considered opinion</em> they will win!\" </p>\n", "score": 3 } ]

[ "criminal-law", "us-constitution", "florida", "plea" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7150, "body": "<p>Dale M is right. A SW Development Contract is just about the same thing as any other Development Contract - difference is that it's about SW development.So if Development Agreement is a \"normal contract\" a SW Development Agreement is also. </p>\n\n<p>However, a Letter Agreement might not be considered as normal contract (or as binding as a \"normal contract\")- depends on its terms. It's normally used also as a \"pre-agreement\" where the Parties define the commonly agreed grounds of the business relationship. In your particular case, the Letter Agreement defines that the Software will be jointly owned by both A an B in equal shares - this is then the common overall understanding of the Parties, but more specific provisions would be in the Parties' benefit, e.g. does B also has licensing rights? will B be entitled to any compensation for each SW license granted by A as a result of its own (A) commercial efforts? </p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "contract-law" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7149, "body": "<p>With a FOIA requuest, you don't ask a government official, you ask a government agency. A government agency isn't protected by the 5th amendment. </p>\n\n<p>In practice, the response to a request isn't provided by an agency, but by an employee of that agency. That employee should respond based on the knowledge of the agency. If the employee has any private knowledge, that wouldn't become part of the response. That applies if the employee has private knowledge of a crime. If that crime was committed by someone else, it might have been illegal not to report the crime, but that is independent of the FOIA request. </p>\n\n<p>Now let's say the agency has knowledge of a crime that \"the agency\" committed. (In reality I would assume some member of the agency did). Since an agency is not protected by the 5th amendment, it has to be part of the response. </p>\n\n<p>Now let's say the agency has knowledge of a crime that the employee writing the response committed. That's when self incrimination comes into play. I don't think 5th amendment allows you to lie, including lying by omission. So quite possibly that employee can say \"I'm not going to write the response to the FOIA request\". In that case, the next employee would have to write the response, and that employee wouldn't be incriminating himself. </p>\n\n<p>Now if <em>all</em> employees committed a crime together, then they might all be able to refuse to write the reply, but the agency still has to respond, so they might have to request outside help :-)</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "constitutional-law", "foia" ]

[ { "answer_id": 5875, "body": "<p>In all these examples, adding the qualifier \"in my personal opinion\" removes virtually any and all defamation exposure. </p>\n", "score": 1 }, { "answer_id": 5894, "body": "<p>Prima facie, given their usual usage and definition, all the statements are defamatory. Best defense is the publication was limited so that damage would be negligible. The statements themselves are pretty indefensible.</p>\n", "score": 0 } ]

[ "united-kingdom", "libel", "defamation" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7146, "body": "<p>While German law indeed requires providing correct contact information it does not require the recipient to answer queries. It is there so that you can submit legal notifications. In your case I wouldn't be so sure that the information is not correct.</p>\n\n<p>However, even if the contact information is incorrect, there is not much you can do about it. This is reserved to the following groups by <a href=\"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_uwg/englisch_uwg.html#p0085\" rel=\"noreferrer\">§ 8 Abs. 3 UWG</a>:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <ol>\n <li>every competitor;</li>\n <li>associations with legal personality which exist for the promotion of commercial or of independent professional interests, so far as a considerable number of entrepreneurs belong thereto, and which distribute goods or services of the same or similar type on the same market, provided such associations are actually in a position, particularly in terms of their personnel, material and financial resources, to pursue the tasks, under their memoranda of association, of promoting commercial or independent professional interests, and so far as the contravention affects the interests of their members;</li>\n <li>qualified entities that prove that they are entered on the list of qualified entities pursuant to section 4 of the Injunctions Act or on the list of the Commission of the European Communities pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 98/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 1998 on injunctions for the protection of consumer interests (OJ Number L 166 page 51);</li>\n <li>Chambers of Industry and Commerce or Craft Chambers.</li>\n </ol>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Unless you are a competitor you are out of luck.</p>\n\n<p>The hoster or other providers can't do anything and don't need to, as they are not required to check legality of their user's websites.</p>\n\n<p>It doesn't really matter where you are by the way for these laws.</p>\n", "score": 5 } ]

[ "internet", "european-union", "germany" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7143, "body": "<p>It's saying if part of the contract is found to be void or unenforceable, that the rest of it is still a contract.</p>\n\n<p>It's called <a href=\"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability\" rel=\"nofollow\">severability</a>.</p>\n", "score": 4 } ]

[ "united-states", "contract-law" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7131, "body": "<p>I'm pretty sure this is completely off-topic here, but anyway...</p>\n\n<p>You seem to be mixing up a lot of things.</p>\n\n<p>First, there's a difference between technology and actually providing a service. A company could introduce a new technology that could be used for last-mile access, but not actually provide any services, opting to sell the technology to telecommunications companies.</p>\n\n<p>Next, though that's unlikely in the current environment, a company may opt to provide telecommunications services, but not actually become an ISP, opting to resell the last-mile access to actual ISPs. Note that in other contexts, this actually happens in many markets (mostly in Europe) where incumbents (the former state monopolies) are forced to resell use of their last-mile network (which was in most cases publicly funded) to competitors.</p>\n\n<p>Then, if a company decides to actually become an ISP in its own right, they need to ensure they have connectivity to the rest of the Internet. This takes two forms: peering (which gives access only to the other network's customers) and transit, which will give you access to your transit provider's customers, peers and upstream transit, resulting in access to all of the Internet.</p>\n\n<p>Peering may occur at Internet eXchange (IX) points, or be arranged as private peering (which may happen at IXs, other colocation facilities, or even via dedicated circuits between the two ISPs). Historically, peering was free, but nowadays there's a mix of free and paid peering, and peering policies are a complex beast (most ISPs only want to peer with ISPs that have a similar or larger size, and similar traffic patterns).</p>\n\n<p>A so-called \"Tier 1\" ISP is an ISP that does not buy transit. There's a handful of them, which for historical reasons have always peered with each other. All other ISPs are (directly or indirectly) customers of one or more of those ISPs.</p>\n\n<p>The cost of transit is just a commercial negotiation like any other. It's very similar to a end user picking their ISP or cell phone provider. Negotiation includes speed, connection points, service guarantees, etc. Most serious ISPs are \"multi-homed\", which means they buy transit from several \"upstream\" ISPs. They also try to have as much (free) peering traffic as possible.</p>\n\n<p>There's a lot of competition in this field, so new ISPs have a wide choice of options, and there's very little regulation. If you want details of regulations, you'll have to specify which markets you are talking about.</p>\n\n<p>On a side note, wireless last mile is nothing new, and comes with its own challenges, including deployment of base stations, spectrum use, line-of-sight/coverage, etc. It's definitely not the magical solution some would like to pretend it is.</p>\n", "score": 0 } ]

[ "internet", "antitrust-law", "regulations" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7128, "body": "<p>You are seeking criminal penalties through the civil law system, which does not happen (and for good reason). If you want criminal penalties, You need to pursue harassment, rape, or other criminal law penalties through the criminal law system. People can also be \"scared straight\" just by an encounter with a police officer for their activities, although some people increase their attacks.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "united-states", "civil-law" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7086, "body": "<p>In English, individuals (in the first person) are \"me/I\" and \"mine\", individuals and groups (in the second person) are \"you\" and \"your\" and groups in the second person (which includes companies) are \"we/us\" and \"our\".</p>\n\n<p>You should try to use whatever fits the situation. However, at law, unless the usage creates a real ambiguity, it doesn't matter if you get it wrong: the judge is not your English teacher.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "contract-law", "legal-terms" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7106, "body": "<p>Yes, the President can certainly veto such a law. Per the US Constitution (emphasis added):</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p><strong>Every</strong> bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. </p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>This can have a very real effect: legislators are under no obligation to vote the same way on a veto override as on the original bill. The reason the President needs to supply written objections in the first place is that it lets legislators reconsider, see if they're swayed, or see if they think this is a matter where a Congressional majority needs to be respected even if they disagree (they can change their mind in either direction). They can also get a sense of public reaction. And because the threshold for this is \"present and voting,\" it's possible that just more legislators show up.</p>\n\n<p>Even if legislators <em>won't</em> be swayed, it still matters for pocket vetoes. That's where the President neither signs the bill nor returns it within 10 days; normally this is equivalent to signing, but if Congress adjourns in the meantime, it means the bill does not become a law. Because \"Congress adjourns\" is a necessary part of a pocket veto, it's impossible to override the veto (you can't do it if you're not in session). And even when this doesn't apply either, it matters for politics. </p>\n\n<p>Example of a futile veto: <a href=\"http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d100:HR00001:@@@R\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Public Law 100-4</a>. Passed 406-8 in the House, 93-6 in the Senate. Vetoed; veto was overridden 401-26 in the House and 86-14 in the Senate (note that at least 7 Senators who voted for the bill voted not to override the veto).</p>\n\n<p>Example of an effective veto: While technically there was a conference report agreed to by both houses, and it doesn't seem to have had a roll-call vote (my guess is it was agreed to by unanimous consent; side note: many, many laws don't <em>have</em> roll-calls to check on, because they're passed by voice vote or unanimous consent), <a href=\"http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d095:HR10929:@@@R\" rel=\"noreferrer\">H.R.10929</a> from the 95th Congress was passed in the House by a vote of 319-67 and in the Senate by 87-2. After President Carter vetoed it, the House voted on whether to override the veto. The motion to override was defeated <em>191-206</em>: after the veto, they couldn't even get a simple majority to override the veto of the bill which had been passed by an overwhelming supermajority.</p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>I mentioned it above, but the two-thirds threshold is \"present and voting.\" As a general rule, any time you see a fraction of something needed for a vote to succeed in a deliberative assembly, then unless it specifies some other denominator, it's talking about the fraction of members present and voting. <a href=\"https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22654.pdf\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Relevant CRS report on override procedure</a>.</p>\n", "score": 5 } ]

[ "us-constitution" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7104, "body": "<p>There isn't necessarily consensus. Legislation is passed by rough majority of the elected representatives, and signed into law by the chief executive (President or Governor) unless they choose to veto it.</p>\n\n<p>Legislators and executives can be replaced by election if enough of the people want them gone.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "criminal-law", "common-law" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7098, "body": "<p>Many times.</p>\n<p>See pages 4 and onward <a href=\"https://www.fd.org/docs/select-topics/sentencing-resources/sentencing-manipulation-sentencing-entrapment.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">here</a>.</p>\n<p>The 11th circuit (which includes FL) recognizes sentencing manipulation but not sentencing entrapment.</p>\n<p>The one example from the 11th circuit in that document (US v. Ciszkowski, 492 F.3d 1264) was an unsuccessful claim of sentence manipulation, but it shows the analysis that goes into deciding these types of claims. They say:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>While our Circuit does not recognize sentencing entrapment as a viable defense, we do recognize the outrageous government conduct defense, and we have considered sentencing manipulation as a viable defense.</p>\n<p>...</p>\n<p>Ciszkowski, however, has not met his burden of establishing that the government's conduct is sufficiently reprehensible to constitute sentencing factor manipulation. Government-created reverse sting operations are recognized and useful methods of law enforcement investigation. Sanchez, 138 F.3d at 1413. The fact that law enforcement may provide drugs or guns essential to a willing and predisposed offender does not necessarily constitute misconduct.</p>\n<p>We have previously declined to find that the government engaged in prohibited sentencing factor manipulation in other similar contexts.</p>\n</blockquote>\n", "score": 4 } ]

[ "united-states", "criminal-law", "us-constitution", "florida", "law-review" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7094, "body": "<p>Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, </p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>\"Every State shall require the master of a ship flying its flag, in so\n far as he can do so without serious danger to the ship, the crew or\n the passengers to render assistance to any person found at sea in\n danger of being lost, to proceed with all possible speed to the rescue\n of persons in distress, if informed of their need of assistance, in so\n far as such action may reasonably be expected of him, and after a\n collision, to render assistance to the other ship, its crew and its\n passengers and, where possible, to inform the other ship of the name\n of his own ship, its port of registry and the nearest port at which it\n will call.\"</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>So the obligation to assist and carve outs to it will depend on the specific domestic maritime law of the state parties to the convention and how they implement their treaty obligation and punish violations of their domestic law.</p>\n\n<p>Realistically, of course, a jurisdiction will be unlikely to prosecute a captain whose aid is explicitly rejected in front of witnesses, especially if there would be any danger to his crew in trying to assist against someone's will. </p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "negligence", "good-samaritan", "law-of-the-sea" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7090, "body": "<p>Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. The test comes from <em>Strickland v. Washington 466 U.S. 668 (1984)</em>, reiterated in <em>Woodford v. Visciotti 537 U.S. 19 (2002)</em>:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>[A] defendant need only establish a \"reasonable probability\" that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of his sentencing proceeding would have been different.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p><em>Woodford</em> held that failure to present mitigating evidence did not prejudice this particular defendant's sentence.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>There is no support for the conclusion that the state court failed to take into account the totality of the available mitigating evidence and to consider the prejudicial impact of counsel's actions. The state court found that, because the aggravating factors were so severe, respondent suffered no prejudice from trial counsel's (assumed) inadequacy.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Schriro v. Landrigan 550 U.S. 465 (2007) found that counsel was not required to present mitigating evidence after defendant interrupted him, telling the court to \"bring on\" the death penalty.</p>\n\n<p>Rompilla v. Beard 545 U.S. 374 (2005) held that:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>[e]ven when a capital defendant and his family members have suggested that no mitigating evidence is available, his lawyer is bound to make reasonable efforts to obtain and review material that counsel knows the prosecution will probably rely on as evidence of aggravation at the trial’s sentencing phase.</p>\n</blockquote>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "united-states", "criminal-law", "us-constitution", "rules-of-court", "us-supreme-court" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7079, "body": "<p>If you are charged under the laws of Estonia (or Australia or Thailand or the UK) then the laws of the USA have <strong>no relevance whatsoever</strong>. </p>\n\n<p>It makes no difference if you are a US citizen, if the alleged crime happened in the USA or was perpetrated against the USA. If nation X has jurisdiction then you are tried under the laws of nation X. That is what sovereignty means.</p>\n\n<p>As to your specific example, Facebook does business in Estonia, therefore they are subject to Estonian law, as a US corporation they are also subject to US law and the law of every other jurisdiction they operate in (see why they need big legal departments?). If a legitimate Estonian warrant was served on them to disclose metadata or anything else then they are legally obliged to do so or be in contempt of court.</p>\n\n<p>Oh, and by the way, the first amendment right to free speech does not give you a right to <em>anonymous</em> free speech. </p>\n", "score": 7 } ]

[ "united-states", "european-union", "first-amendment" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7081, "body": "<p>Assuming USA law:</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2315\" rel=\"nofollow\">https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2315</a></p>\n\n<p>If you accept or buy goods that are knowingly stolen you may be fined or imprisoned.</p>\n\n<p>If you buy goods and later find out they were stolen you can sue for a refund. However, I'd say the likelihood of getting your money back is incredibly low.</p>\n", "score": 3 }, { "answer_id": 7087, "body": "<p>@NotMe has dealt with the criminal aspects, the civil aspects are that at common law you do not have good title to a piece of stolen property. That is, legally it belongs to the person from whom it was taken and they can turn up at any time and demand its return from the person who currently possesses it.</p>\n\n<p>Negotiable instruments like cash, stocks, bonds and cheques are an exception to this, a person who, in good faith, accepts one of these has good title even if they have been previously stolen.</p>\n", "score": 0 } ]

[ "business" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7084, "body": "<p><a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1702\" rel=\"nofollow\">18 USC Sec 1702</a>:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Whoever takes any letter, postal card, or package out of any post office or any authorized depository for mail matter, or from any letter or mail carrier, or which has been in any post office or authorized depository, or in the custody of any letter or mail carrier, before it has been delivered to the person to whom it was directed, with design to obstruct the correspondence, or to pry into the business or secrets of another, or opens, secretes, embezzles, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.</p>\n</blockquote>\n", "score": 4 } ]

[ "criminal-law" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7082, "body": "<blockquote>\n <p>If a client were to pay a business $X for a service can the business\n pay the employees a percent of the clients payment if the employees\n only duties involve providing the service the client payed for?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Generally speaking, the amount of money a business pays it's employees has nothing to do with the amount of money the business collects from contracts it makes.</p>\n\n<p>Quite frankly any business that provides labor will charge more for that labor than they receive. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a business. </p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>Now, if you are asking if a company is allowed to pay employees a percentage of a contract; then, yes, they can. However the amount of money must exceed minimum wage. </p>\n\n<p>A business is also allowed to subcontract the work to non-employees such that they don't have to worry about minimum wage. In that case it's up to the subcontractor to determine if they are willing to work for the amount offered or not.</p>\n", "score": 2 } ]

[ "united-states", "business" ]

[ { "answer_id": 6990, "body": "<p>Seriously, let's break this down: (any emphasis in quotes will be mine)</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Now i decided to buy liquor off campus and drink at school in a closed stall <strong>in a public washroom.</strong></p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>A public washroom, as private as it may appear, is still public. If you hide behind a tree in somewhat of an enclosed area within a park, it's still public. People might not be able to see you, but you are still on a public piece of property.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>They took me to campus security and they told me i was publically intoxicated. How can i be guilty of being intoxicated while there are students on campus</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Since we've now determined that you were on a public space, and you were intoxicated, then you were intoxicated in public. Looking at the <a href=\"http://www.qp.alberta.ca/1266.cfm?page=g01.cfm&amp;leg_type=Acts&amp;display=html\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Gaming and Liquor Act</a> in Alberta:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><strong>Taking intoxicated person into custody</strong></p>\n<p>115(1) No person may be intoxicated in a public place.</p>\n<p>(2) If a peace officer on reasonable and probable grounds believes that a person is intoxicated in a public place, the peace officer may, instead of charging the person with an offence, take the person into custody to be dealt with in accordance with this section.</p>\n<p>(3) A person in custody pursuant to subsection (2) may be released from custody at any time if on reasonable and probable grounds the person responsible for the custody believes that</p>\n<ul>\n<li>(a) the person in custody has recovered sufficient capacity that, if released, the person is unlikely to injury himself or herself or be a danger, nuisance or disturbance to others, or</li>\n<li>(b) a person capable of taking care of the person taken into custody undertakes to take care of that person.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>(4) A person taken into custody under this section may not be held in custody for more than 24 hours after being taken into custody.</p>\n<p>(5) No action lies against a peace officer or other person for anything done in good faith with respect to the apprehension, custody or release of a person pursuant to this section.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>One thing to note is that Public Intoxication is a provincial matter. So it's a good thing to remember that the laws vary from province to province. <em>Public Intoxication</em> is a provincial offence.</p>\n<p>Look over that law. § 115(1) says that you can't be intoxicated in a public space. There are exceptions to this: you are in a licensed area that has a permit, and so on.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>How can they determine the beers i had in the washroom were drank in the washroom and they assumed my intoxication based on the smell and my words but my words were clear... Can I report this? <strong>They even handcuffed me as if i showed some sign of restraint?</strong></p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>All they need is a doubt. If they think that you were intoxicated in a public space, then they have a duty to intervene. In most spots, if you are deemed to pose a threat, or <em>possibly a nuisance</em> to to others, the peace officer has the authority to intervene.</p>\n<p>They handcuffed you to show that you, and others, were being detained. This is standard: touching, or keeping someone close to them will show that. About reporting it, I doubt you can: a report has already been filed with the police, and that will likely be on a record. It might not say that you were charged (and convicted) of an offence under Albertan law, but it will say that you were arrested and taken into custody at one point for public intoxication.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "canada", "police", "alcohol" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7044, "body": "<p>At least in theory an end user could be sued for infringing on a patent, especially a method claim. Given the cost of a patent lawsuit, this strikes me as <em>extremely</em> unlikely to happen though, unless the user in question were an extremely large company, or something on that order.</p>\n\n<p>Theoretically, the only difference between open-source software and proprietary software would be that availability of the source code makes it easier to prove use of a patent in open-source software. Releasing the software as open-source doesn't confer any immunity from patent law or anything like that though. Realistically, however, the chances of being sued for infringement if you're basically giving away the software in question are fairly remote. It rarely makes sense for a patent holder to spend millions of dollars on a lawsuit where they stand no chance of even recovering their cost (but no, that certainly should <strong>not</strong> be taken as legal advice that you're free to infringe on patents, or anything similar--in fact, none of this should be taken as legal advice at all).</p>\n\n<p>If you can actually prove that a technique was published or publicly known and used (e.g., in a product that was offered for sale) well before the patent was applied for, the patent is probably invalid (and if proven so in court, the case would normally be dismissed with prejudice, which basically means the patent holder wouldn't be able to sue anybody else for infringement of that patent). I'd note, however, that in my experience this is <em>much</em> less common than most people imagine--many look at (for example) the title of a patent, and assume it lacks originality because it refers to some well-known technique, and ignore the claims where it details the precise differences between the previously known technique and what the patent really covers.</p>\n\n<p>Just for example, the EFF used to have a web page talking about a (now long-since expired) patent on how to draw a cursor on screen. In an apparent attempt at scaring the unwary, they showed code they claimed infringed in the patent--despite the fact that the patent's \"background of the invention\" specifically cited the technique they showed as being previously known, and <em>not</em> covered by the patent.</p>\n", "score": 5 } ]

[ "software", "liability", "patents", "consumer-protection" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7066, "body": "<p>Ask one of the high-profile law school human rights clinics, a copyright law professor, or the legal staff of a major human rights NGO; or see who they suggest talking to.</p>\n\n<p>This is not quite typical fair use commentary on an issue of public concern, but it is still addressing an issue of public concern and there is a strong argument that First Amendment protections should apply, especially if the release is done, for example, via news media. An experienced expert or motivated researcher will know or can spend some time with the relevant case law.</p>\n", "score": 1 } ]

[ "copyright" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7054, "body": "<p>Copyright infringement requires copying.</p>\n\n<p>The inventor could very reasonably invent a device without any reference or even knowledge of the artistic depiction in the Portal games. If the inventor hasn't copied anything, they aren't infringing copyright.</p>\n\n<p>Also, with respect to 2d depictions of 3d objects, only architectural drawings are protected in that way: <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_in_architecture_in_the_United_States\">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_in_architecture_in_the_United_States</a></p>\n\n<p>With respect to your patent question, Valve hasn't publicly disclosed <em>how</em> to make a Portal gun, so an inventor of a Portal gun would not be blocked from patenting it. You can't get a patent without describing how to actually make the invention.</p>\n", "score": 18 } ]

[ "copyright", "patents" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7052, "body": "<p>You don't have to pay anything to participate.</p>\n\n<p>The picks offered as part of Streak for the Cash are not statistically 50/50. There are often picks with vegas lines that correspond to 60-70% for one of the sides.</p>\n\n<p>The test for whether something is a game of chance is not simply checking whether the options are 50/50.</p>\n", "score": 4 } ]

[ "gambling" ]