LII: Federal Rules of Evidence. Effective Date and Application of Rules Pub. L. 93–595, §1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1926, provided: “That the following rules shall take effect on the one hundred and eightieth day [July 1, 1975] beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act [Jan. 2, 1975]. These rules apply to actions, cases, and proceedings brought after the rules take effect.
These rules also apply to further procedure in actions, cases, and proceedings then pending, except to the extent that application of the rules would not be feasible, or would work injustice, in which event former evidentiary principles apply.” Historical Note The Federal Rules of Evidence were adopted by order of the Supreme Court on Nov. 20, 1972, transmitted to Congress by the Chief Justice on Feb. 5, 1973, and to have become effective on July 1, 1973. The Rules have been amended Oct. 16, 1975, Pub. Contract Management, efax, NDA, Document Management, Non-Disclos. LawMeme. Web Publisher. Massachusetts Noncompete Lawyer & Attorney : Foley Hoag Law. Court says "no" to changing terms of service without n. Many of us have seen service agreements that specify that the terms could be changed at any time without notifying the user. Well, a recent court decision could change all that. Service providers should not be able to change their terms of service arbitrarily without notifying their registered users, according to the judges in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The decision on the case of Douglas v. Talk America (PDF) could affect how web site operators handle changes made to user agreements, regardless of what the user originally agreed to. The case involved an AOL voice customer named Joe Douglas whose account was transferred to Talk America when Talk America purchased that segment of AOL's business. Talk America changed the terms of Douglas' contract, which he did not notice for a number of years because his service and billing continued on as expected.
But what if the original user agreement involved signing away rights to be notified of subsequent changes? AudioCaseFiles.com - Home. The Social Psychological Approach to Influence & Persuasion. You, the reader, may be an influence expert. You may work in politics, advertising, sales, law, or any number of other careers that require you to persuade people in the course of your daily life. You may be very successful, too. If so, you have an intuitive feel for what moves people. And you probably enjoy thinking about how persuasion works. You may occasionally find yourself in the situation of the lawyer in the following story.
Several years ago, California brought the issue of "no fault insurance" to a vote. During the weeks before the vote, attorneys were volunteering to speak to just about any group of people who would lend them an ear. Our lawyer friend is asking the right questions, but coming to exactly the wrong conclusions. He is guessing that rapid speech makes one sound credible. Back to our original question: what does social psychology know that isn't already known by those who use persuasion and compliance tactics on a daily basis? Justia Federal District Court Filings and Dockets. VentureBlog. Download It While Its Hot: Open Access and Legal Scholarship by. Georgetown University Law Center Lewis & Clark Law Review, Vol. 10, p. 841, 2006 Illinois Public Law Research Paper No. 07-03 U Illinois Law & Economics Research Paper No. LE07-11 Abstract: This Article analyzes the shift of legal scholarship from the old world of law reviews to today's world of peer reviews to tomorrow's world of open access legal blogs.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 28 Keywords: law reviews, open access, peer-edited, blog, blogging, disintermediation Accepted Paper Series Suggested Citation Solum, Lawrence B., Download It While Its Hot: Open Access and Legal Scholarship. AllofMP3.com Responds to RIAA Lawsuit. The legal wranglings of various file-sharing developers has created several common response patterns from those unfortunate enough to face litigation from the RIAA (Recording Industry Associate of America.) If you're of the LimeWire ilk, your response may be to stay and fight. If you're from the BearShare clan, you may wish to settle. Then there's the Ares Galaxy option; a tactic that focuses on apathy in the face of potential litigation and carrying on business as usual.
AllofMP3.com appears to have chosen the third option in response to a lawsuit filed by the RIAA on behalf of its member companies. The complaint was filed on December 21, 2006, against Media Services (the company which owns AllofMP3.com) in a lawsuit of unprecedented value in the file-sharing realm. The RIAA charges that AllofMP3.com is an illegal service and infringes on their member company's copyrights because they have yet to see any of the fees collected by the Russian music store.
Microsoft Tries To Patent RSS Readers - Mashable! It seems that the US patent system is regularly abused, so it's no surprise that Microsoft think they can patent the some of the technology related to feed readers, the handy little applications that some of you are probably using to read this post. Microsoft has filed for two patents covering the technology used to organize and read syndicated Web feeds - these patents were made public today after an 18-month period during which applications are kept secret.
That means Microsoft filed the patents way back on June 21, 2005. A few days later, they announced a plan to include RSS support in Windows Vista and Internet Explorer. The two patents (here and here) cover the ability to "subscribe to a particular Web feed, be provided with a user interface that contains distinct indicia to identify new feeds, and...efficiently consume or read RSS feeds using both an RSS reader and a Web browser. " That basically describes a browser-based feedreader. [via] Google Patents :: ArnoldIT. A programmable search engine system is programmable by a variety of different entities, such as client devices and vertical content sites to customize search results for users.
Context files store instructions for controlling the operations of the programmable search engine. The context files are processed by various context processors, which use the instructions therein to provide various pre-processing, post-processing, and search engine control operations. Spam related and biased contexts and search results are identified using offline and query time processing stages, and the context files from vertical content providers associated with such spam and biased context and results are excluded from processing on direct user queries. Methods and apparatus, including systems and computer program products, to provide clustering of users in which users are each represented as a set of elements representing items, e.g., items selected by users using a system. Patently-O: Patent Law Blog.
Below is my account of the Patent Troll debate at PatCon 4. As those who were in attendance know, it was a dynamic, insightful, and interesting discussion about a very complex issue. Resolved: That hostility to patent trolls is not well justified theoretically or empirically and will likely result in bad law.
Pro: David Schwartz, John Duffy Con: Michael Meurer, Mark Lemley John: Hostility to patent trolls unfounded as a theoretical matter. 1) Alienability of patent rights: this should not be changed. Consider AT&T research labs: better to have everything integrated into a massive corporation or to have rights spread out among lots of people. 2) Litigation costs are high. Mike – Three observations: 1) Relatively little troll activity at the start of the 20th century 2) Small businesses have motivated Congress and the White House to pursue a variety of reforms 3) Peter Detkin thinks that there is a lot of evidence that some folks are gaming the system. 1) Critical issue of what a PAE is.
Patently-O: Patent Law Blog: Supreme Court: Current Test of Obvi. (Supreme Court 2006, Oral Arguments). The doctrine of nonobviousness is the cornerstone of American patent law. I was reminded today by Phil Swain that our nonobviousness statute, section 103(a) of the Patent Act, was drafted by Judge Giles Rich . Judge Rich is most celebrated patent judge of this century. His statutory masterpiece eliminated the amorphous concept of a “flash of genius” and replaced it with our now ubiquitous objective standard of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
In Graham v. John Deere , the Supreme Court reinforced 103(a) with its concept of case-by-case consideration of secondary indicia of nonobviousness as a way to avoid potential hindsight bias. Later, as the Federal Circuit developed its own patent jurisprudence, the court hit upon the teaching-suggestion-motivation test as another anti-hindsight rule. In , the Supreme Court is questioning whether the TSM test should exist as the sole determinant of obviousness. J. J. Mr. Mr. Discussion of In re Kahn ; Sample Contracts and Business Forms - Competitive Intelligence f. The legal thing... We recently held one of our regular department update calls that included as a guest speaker the Lead Technologist responsible for driving flash memory across Sun's product portfolio. Truly fascinating stuff. In his presentation, he illustrated how storage technology has not kept pace with advances in servers (especially multi-core systems). The result is that today's systems spend significant time "waiting" for data to be accessed from storage and insuring that it is not altered or corrupted.
Although flash technology has been around for years ( think of your cellphone or camera), it has only now developed to the point that it can be used in servers. The result is a system that is faster, but uses significantly less energy. But it is not just advances in flash technology that enable this shift in server design. The presentation caused me to think about a human analog to the same problem of data flow. Conference Call Tips Do use the right phone in a quiet, undisturbed room.
Amp; Blog Archive & Huh? YouTub. Buried in my email this evening I found a cease and desist letter from an attorney at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, representing their client YouTube. We’ve been accused of a number of things: violating YouTube’s Terms of Use, of “tortious interference of a business relationship, and in fact, many business relationships,” of committing an “unfair business practice,” and “false advertising.”
The attorney goes on to demand that we cease and desist in from engaging in these various actions or face legal remedies. Well, crap. The offense we committed was creating a small tool that lets people download YouTube videos to their hard drives. We referenced the tool in a recent post that walked people through the process of moving YouTube Videos to their iPod. We created the tool only after a careful review of YouTube’s Terms of Use, which state “If you download or print a copy of the Content for personal use, you must retain all copyright and other proprietary notices contained therein.” ScienceCareers.org | Intellectual Property. Cass Sunstein - Wikipedia, the free encycl. Cass Robert Sunstein[1] (born September 21, 1954) is an American legal scholar, particularly in the fields of constitutional law, administrative law, environmental law, and law and behavioral economics, who was the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration.[2] For 27 years, Sunstein taught at the University of Chicago Law School.[3] Sunstein is currently the Robert Walmsley University Professor[4] and Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School.
Early life and education[edit] Career[edit] Sunstein worked in the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department as an attorney-advisor (1980–1981) and then took a job as an assistant professor of law at the University of Chicago Law School (1981–1983), where he also became an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science (1983–1985). In 1985, Sunstein was made a full professor of both political science and law; in 1988, he was named the Karl N. Real Estate Forms! Welcome | Creative Common. GROKLAW. Individual-i. The Constitution of the United States of A. We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Article I Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature. When vacancies happen in the Representation from any state, the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies. Section 3. The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. Section 4. Article V. Small Business Lawyer, Attorney, Law, Lega.
Opposing Copyright Extension, Protecting T. LII: U.S. Code: Home. LexBlog Blog : Lawyer Blogs, Blawgs &Law B. Internet Legal Research Group - Law, Lawye. Free Legal Advice in 100+ Law Topics - Law. BitLaw: A Resource on Technology Law. Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constituti. Have you ever heard someone say, "That's unconstitutional! " or "That's my constitutional right! " and wondered if they were right? You might be surprised how often people get it wrong. You might also be surprised how often people get it right. Your best defense against misconception is reading and knowing your Constitution. A lot of people presume a lot of things about the Constitution. One critique of this page is that it is full of nit-picks. The Air Force The Constitution was ratified in 1787, long, long before the advent of the airplane. Congressional Districts Congressional Districts divide almost every state in the United States into two or more chunks; each district should be roughly equal in population throughout the state and indeed, the entire country.
The Electoral College The concept of the presidential elector is certainly in the Constitution, but never is the group of people collectively referred to as "The Electoral College. " Executive Orders Executive Privilege God Marriage. Forms &Agreement. Available CFR Titles on GPO Acce. Regulations.gov. The myth of the rule of law. John Hasnas (1) Copyright 1995 by The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System Reprinted by permission of the Wisconsin Law Review Originally published in 1995 Wisconsin Law Review 199 (1995) Stop! Before reading this Article, please take the following quiz. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides, in part: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; . . . .
" (2)On the basis of your personal understanding of this sentence's meaning (not your knowledge of constitutional law), please indicate whether you believe the following sentences to be true or false. _____ 1) In time of war, a federal statute may be passed prohibiting citizens from revealing military secrets to the enemy. _____ 2) The President may issue an executive order prohibiting public criticism of his administration. _____ 3) Congress may pass a law prohibiting museums from exhibiting photographs and paintings depicting homosexual activity.