Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Morning Legal Briefs

View
19 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >

19. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Aug 18, 2012, 14:57 eRe4s3r
 
Obviously they refused How else could they extradite him illegally? Wikileaks documents even show that Sweden did so before. Except the guy in question wasn't as famous as Assange.

I in my opinion, the real "ass" in this whole drama is the Australian government. They would WILLINGLY extradite one of their citizens even if they face the death penalty... If I were Australian I would rebel. The state has no right to do something like that. It is supposed to be FOR THE PEOPLE. Not against it. And the UK with their veiled treat of storming an embassy... puts them right smack on the level of countries like Lybia or North Korea. Imo a place where the UK belongs, but for various other equally disturbing reasons.

I think Ecuador is maybe not the grand hall of freedom of speech. But if they get Assange out of the UK then this is going down into the history books.

Anyway, I was merely saying why he doesn't want to go to Sweden. If he is judged to prison they can extradite him much easier. In fact, maybe even secretly. That Sweden would do this as soon as the US called is imo clear.
 
Avatar 54727
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
18. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Aug 18, 2012, 12:52 Bard
 
eRe4s3r wrote on Aug 18, 2012, 00:56:
Man the UK vs Assange thing is getting absurd.

If I were a male I wouldn't want to even set a foot into Sweden where all males are regarded as potential sexual criminals and rapists. And that is not even a joke. It is illegal to have unprotected sex in Sweden if the women decides it to be, after agreeing to it, 3 weeks later. Sweden has the best gender "equality" rating in the world, and you know what that means? That males have to behave like women and that women have superior rights in all situations, including children care, and whether to put you behind jail for no reason.

So I can understand Assange, I would not want to even visit Sweden and every time I see it in the top spot on gender equality I cringe. Equality is very relative.

This is how politicians write laws.

*They are sell to us 'best and fairest' outcome and situation
*They are applied in the most authoritarian way

If anything wikileaks has revealed is that what less informed people call 'conspiracy theories' as a derogatory term, are in fact real.

*The banks are being chased because they conspired to rip us off with interest rate fixing
*The US, Sweden, the UK and Australia have conspired to ignore inconvenient laws
*The governments of the 'empire' (not british, rothschild+friends) have conspired to put all of us under electronic surveillance and to keep it hidden from us
*The FDA in the US rejected Aspertame's approval - until the manufacturer conspired with Donald Rumsfeld and had the approver replaced with a lackey.
*The government of Japan conspired to keep us all unaware of the truth about Fukushima's meltdown to 'prevent panic'- for how long? forever?

People may call it "conspiracy theory" - but the answer to that is "it's conspiracy fact".

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
17. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Aug 18, 2012, 09:41 Julio
 
eRe4s3r wrote on Aug 18, 2012, 00:56:
It is illegal to have unprotected sex in Sweden if the women decides it to be, after agreeing to it, 3 weeks later.

All the men in Sweden should go elsewhere to get laid. See how long that law lasts then.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
16. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Aug 18, 2012, 09:39 Julio
 
Cutter wrote on Aug 17, 2012, 18:52:
Who appointed her? A politician backed by Apple? These are some of the questions I'd love to see asked and answered.

I'm sure the answers are it is a politician who is (or was backed) by Apple. If Apple can get away with modern day slavery, they can sure payoff some politicians and judges.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
15. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Aug 18, 2012, 04:57 Bhruic
 
eRe4s3r wrote on Aug 18, 2012, 00:56:
So I can understand Assange, I would not want to even visit Sweden and every time I see it in the top spot on gender equality I cringe. Equality is very relative.

My understanding is that he agreed to go to Sweden as long as Sweden would agree to forego any possibility of him being extradited to the US. Sweden refused.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
14. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Aug 18, 2012, 04:54 netnerd85
 
eRe4s3r wrote on Aug 18, 2012, 00:56:
Man the UK vs Assange thing is getting absurd.

If I were a male I wouldn't want to even set a foot into Sweden where all males are regarded as potential sexual criminals and rapists. And that is not even a joke. It is illegal to have unprotected sex in Sweden if the women decides it to be, after agreeing to it, 3 weeks later. Sweden has the best gender "equality" rating in the world, and you know what that means? That males have to behave like women and that women have superior rights in all situations, including children care, and whether to put you behind jail for no reason.

So I can understand Assange, I would not want to even visit Sweden and every time I see it in the top spot on gender equality I cringe. Equality is very relative.
Indeed, their laws are pathetic. I think "Women's rights" in most countries has gone too far in some respects. Obviously a lot of good has happened but it's time to pull back. "Equal rights" includes the rights of Men as well.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
13. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Aug 18, 2012, 00:56 eRe4s3r
 
Man the UK vs Assange thing is getting absurd.

If I were a male I wouldn't want to even set a foot into Sweden where all males are regarded as potential sexual criminals and rapists. And that is not even a joke. It is illegal to have unprotected sex in Sweden if the women decides it to be, after agreeing to it, 3 weeks later. Sweden has the best gender "equality" rating in the world, and you know what that means? That males have to behave like women and that women have superior rights in all situations, including children care, and whether to put you behind jail for no reason.

So I can understand Assange, I would not want to even visit Sweden and every time I see it in the top spot on gender equality I cringe. Equality is very relative.
 
Avatar 54727
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
12. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Aug 17, 2012, 19:52 space captain
 
Cutter wrote on Aug 17, 2012, 18:52:
What circuit is this judge on?

one thats on earth. nuff said
 
Go forth, and kill!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
11. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Aug 17, 2012, 18:52 Cutter
 
Panickd wrote on Aug 17, 2012, 16:05:
That all sounds more like Samsung hired themselves some really inept lawyers more than anything else. Good lawyers get judges on their side (or at least not biased against them). It's as if these guys thought that simple fact and logic was all they needed to win in a US court room. Sadly that isn't how it works.

What circuit is this judge on? Who appointed her? A politician backed by Apple? These are some of the questions I'd love to see asked and answered.
 
Avatar 25394
 
"The South will boogie again!" - Disco Stu
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
10. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Aug 17, 2012, 17:49 eRe4s3r
 
Especially hilarious considering that I highly doubt back 2000 years they had internet or video games

Or space-flight..
 
Avatar 54727
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
9. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Aug 17, 2012, 16:05 Panickd
 
Kitkoan wrote on Aug 17, 2012, 15:20:
Panickd wrote on Aug 17, 2012, 13:10:
Cutter wrote on Aug 17, 2012, 12:12:
No, it sounds like Apple bought off the judge. She's shut down Samsung at every turn. It's beyond obvious at this point. Samsung will easily win on appeal however.

Isn't this the case where the judge told Apple's lawyers they must be smoking crack and told them that she wouldn't be hearing anymore testimony from one of their witnesses? I don't think she's necessarily pro-Apple as much as she just wants the case over with because she knows no matter who wins it's not going to be settled in her court room. If Apple wins, Samsung appeals. And if Samsung were to win you can bet your ass Apple will be appealing. This whole case is just killing time and racking up lawyer fees and this judge knows it. I'm sure that she just wants to move on to a case that's going to matter at this point.

From what I've understood, for the most part that is all she has really done against Apple.

For Samsung, she has banned two of their products for sale before the trail was even started (something almost unheard of), banned them from mentioning that the legal threats/issues happened after Steve Jobs famously said he would go thermonuclear against Android and they happen to be the biggest Android seller, threated them for releasing to media evidence she refused that she declared would be made a public document and has zero effect on the case since the jury isn't supposed to read/watch about these kinds of things since it could taint their views(and if she did this in front of her jury would have tainted her own jury, not she if she did that though), banned Samsung from using any images of Steve Jobs, allowed Apple to pick and chose Samsung phones from the past to "re-write" history and haven't let Samsung use any of their other phones to defend against this (again, look at the images that went to the press, etc...

This seems more like her going "See, see, I'm not biased even though I went against the other one, in private away from the jury, with a matter that doesn't effect the case in any way and at the end. But but I still went against them, see"

That all sounds more like Samsung hired themselves some really inept lawyers more than anything else. Good lawyers get judges on their side (or at least not biased against them). It's as if these guys thought that simple fact and logic was all they needed to win in a US court room. Sadly that isn't how it works.

But again, it's not like any of this actually matters. It marks a precedent that a higher court can, and probably will, over rule at which point the whole thing begins again in an even higher court. It'll be years before this comes to any sort of end if both sides are as entrenched and at each others throats as they seem to be. As if both sides said, "Hey we have way too much money! How do we get rid of a lot of it? I know, lawyers!"
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
8. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Aug 17, 2012, 15:47 eunichron
 
Cutter wrote on Aug 17, 2012, 15:28:
eunichron wrote on Aug 17, 2012, 14:51:
That entire case is just an example of how utterly ridiculous our patent law is. There was an amazing TED Talk last week from Kirby Ferguson about how hypocritical Apple is being, and how our patent law actually stifles progress.

Here it is, it's a great talk; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zd-dqUuvLk4

Illustrated very well but easily condensed to the following.... Ecclesiastes 1:9 "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun."

That god damn bible, keeps coming back to bite me in the ass.
 
Avatar 13977
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
7. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Aug 17, 2012, 15:28 Cutter
 
eunichron wrote on Aug 17, 2012, 14:51:
That entire case is just an example of how utterly ridiculous our patent law is. There was an amazing TED Talk last week from Kirby Ferguson about how hypocritical Apple is being, and how our patent law actually stifles progress.

Here it is, it's a great talk; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zd-dqUuvLk4

Illustrated very well but easily condensed to the following.... Ecclesiastes 1:9 "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun."
 
Avatar 25394
 
"The South will boogie again!" - Disco Stu
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
6. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Aug 17, 2012, 15:20 Kitkoan
 
Panickd wrote on Aug 17, 2012, 13:10:
Cutter wrote on Aug 17, 2012, 12:12:
No, it sounds like Apple bought off the judge. She's shut down Samsung at every turn. It's beyond obvious at this point. Samsung will easily win on appeal however.

Isn't this the case where the judge told Apple's lawyers they must be smoking crack and told them that she wouldn't be hearing anymore testimony from one of their witnesses? I don't think she's necessarily pro-Apple as much as she just wants the case over with because she knows no matter who wins it's not going to be settled in her court room. If Apple wins, Samsung appeals. And if Samsung were to win you can bet your ass Apple will be appealing. This whole case is just killing time and racking up lawyer fees and this judge knows it. I'm sure that she just wants to move on to a case that's going to matter at this point.

From what I've understood, for the most part that is all she has really done against Apple.

For Samsung, she has banned two of their products for sale before the trail was even started (something almost unheard of), banned them from mentioning that the legal threats/issues happened after Steve Jobs famously said he would go thermonuclear against Android and they happen to be the biggest Android seller, threated them for releasing to media evidence she refused that she declared would be made a public document and has zero effect on the case since the jury isn't supposed to read/watch about these kinds of things since it could taint their views(and if she did this in front of her jury would have tainted her own jury, not she if she did that though), banned Samsung from using any images of Steve Jobs, allowed Apple to pick and chose Samsung phones from the past to "re-write" history and haven't let Samsung use any of their other phones to defend against this (again, look at the images that went to the press, etc...

This seems more like her going "See, see, I'm not biased even though I went against the other one, in private away from the jury, with a matter that doesn't effect the case in any way and at the end. But but I still went against them, see"
 
Avatar 56087
 
*automatically refuses to place horse heads in anyone's bed*
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
5. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Aug 17, 2012, 14:51 eunichron
 
That entire case is just an example of how utterly ridiculous our patent law is. There was an amazing TED Talk last week from Kirby Ferguson about how hypocritical Apple is being, and how our patent law actually stifles progress.

Here it is, it's a great talk; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zd-dqUuvLk4
 
Avatar 13977
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
4. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Aug 17, 2012, 13:10 Panickd
 
Cutter wrote on Aug 17, 2012, 12:12:
No, it sounds like Apple bought off the judge. She's shut down Samsung at every turn. It's beyond obvious at this point. Samsung will easily win on appeal however.

Isn't this the case where the judge told Apple's lawyers they must be smoking crack and told them that she wouldn't be hearing anymore testimony from one of their witnesses? I don't think she's necessarily pro-Apple as much as she just wants the case over with because she knows no matter who wins it's not going to be settled in her court room. If Apple wins, Samsung appeals. And if Samsung were to win you can bet your ass Apple will be appealing. This whole case is just killing time and racking up lawyer fees and this judge knows it. I'm sure that she just wants to move on to a case that's going to matter at this point.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
3. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Aug 17, 2012, 12:26 Verno
 
Yeah I'm with Cutter on this one, that judge was so pro-Apple that the entire thing was decided from the start.  
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: South Park, Dark Souls 2
Watching: Enemy, Network, Wer
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
2. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Aug 17, 2012, 12:12 Cutter
 
No, it sounds like Apple bought off the judge. She's shut down Samsung at every turn. It's beyond obvious at this point. Samsung will easily win on appeal however.
 
Avatar 25394
 
"The South will boogie again!" - Disco Stu
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
1. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Aug 17, 2012, 12:04 Prez
 
It sounds from the article like Samsung's lawyers screwed up.  
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
19 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo