anseljh

5 ms·

1.
by anseljh 8y ago
Fun fact: there is also no express patent license in GPLv2. There have been lawsuits on that. I know because I was the lawyer who filed one of them. So...yeah, this problem is not hypothetical.
2.
by anseljh 10y ago
Nope. Typography was an excellent vessel for a history lesson here.
3.
by anseljh 10y ago
Don't forget the typography on the SS's IBM Hollerith punch cards, too. Scroll down, 2nd to last image. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ibm-and-quot-death-s-cal...
4.
by anseljh 10y ago
Yes, federal magistrate judges.
5.
by anseljh 11y ago
The declassified NRO documents are here: http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/MOL.html
6.
Declassified: US Military's Secret Cold War Space Project Revealed(space.com)
1 points by anseljh 11y ago|1 comments
7.
“Monkey see, monkey sue is not good law – at least not in the Ninth Circuit.” [pdf](s3.amazonaws.com)
2 points by anseljh 11y ago|0 comments
8.
by anseljh 11y ago
Check out "Asc"'s comment: "There are adblocker-blocker-blockers definition lists... if you can make sense of that. In other words, there are subscriptions (as simple as checking a box in the ad blocker options) that blo
9.
by anseljh 11y ago
Interesting! Notably, "Percentage of Requests Where Some Data Produced" is all 0%.
10.
by anseljh 11y ago
Well, everyone would be able to use YC Research's public outputs defensively as prior art.
11.
by anseljh 11y ago
Did you read the post?
12.
by anseljh 11y ago
Why isn't this the default?
13.
by anseljh 11y ago
Try another point of view. If this review was done outside the case, then it would very likely have to be re-done later IN the case with expert witnesses who are disclosed to the other side through the formal discovery process. It's no
14.
by anseljh 11y ago
I admit, my attention was divided earlier between Hacker News and my day job as a California IP litigator . Here you go: Yes, the UTSA statute is "the law". But it's not the ONLY law. Where there are gaps, courts look to c
15.
by anseljh 11y ago
Well, good thing you're not my client. :)
16.
by anseljh 11y ago
If you wish to brave the San Francisco Superior Court's abysmal court records website, you can plug in case number "CGC 15 545359" to see the docket and view the documents in the case.
17.
by anseljh 11y ago
Um. That "old" "tradition" is binding law until it's overruled. It hasn't been. Again, here are the current California trade secrets statutes: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_
18.
by anseljh 11y ago
California trade secrets law has not changed drastically since 2005. If you have actual information to the contrary, by all means, point to it. You're correct that there's more to it than just keeping something secret: - It has to
19.
by anseljh 11y ago
The law of customer lists being trade secrets is literally centuries old. Perhaps you're remembering a recent case about whether LinkedIn contacts could qualify as trade secrets, which tested where to draw the line: http://b
20.
by anseljh 11y ago
In the US, the loser doesn't even always pay the legal fees. It depends.
21.
by anseljh 11y ago
That can be done -- there is a claim for malicious prosecution. But you have to win the first case before you can bring it. The other alternative, in the current case, is to ask the court for sanctions.
22.
by anseljh 11y ago
This is SUPER wrong. Customer lists were one of the original trade secrets under common law, and they still are trade secrets--as long as they're kept secret. More modern applications: "Business Information Trade secrets in this c
23.
by anseljh 11y ago
Downvoting reality.. nice work, HN! Here's how contracts work: A makes an offer to exchange something of value. If B accepts that offer, there's a contract. How's that work for websites? The website publishes its TOS. You go
24.
by anseljh 11y ago
The terms of service for the site that's delivered to you over HTTP, though--that is a legally binding contract. Some have no-ad-blocking terms.
25.
by anseljh 11y ago
No, the school board should find them.
26.
by anseljh 11y ago
I'm still seething mad after first reading about this 2 hours ago. What, if anything, could these dimwitted officials do to atone for this outrage?
27.
by anseljh 11y ago
Even mighty IBM's lawyers can be sanctioned for bringing a frivolous case out of thin air. If you're careful, you should be OK.
28.
by anseljh 11y ago
Not sure why you think that. Here's California's moonlighting law: "Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign, or offer to assign, any of his or her rights in an invention to his or
29.
by anseljh 11y ago
Here's the Complaint (PDF): https://ia801503.us.archive.org/11/items/gov.uscourts.cand.2...
30.
by anseljh 11y ago
"streaming freedom" is a really clever euphemism.

More ›