|
FrozenVent posted:If the vessel was unflagged, the Convention for the Prevention of Unlawful Acts at Sea (I might be getting the name wrong) would kick in, and whichever country the victims were a national of could intervene. True, a nation does have the responsibility to protect its citizens. Even sovereign ones. More to the point, the international data bunker idea was tried with Sealand. It didn't work out because everyone realized that a micronation in international waters wasn't exactly a safe place to keep anything valuable. Not sure what this has to do with maritime law, but we've been claiming "nontransient signals" for the purpose of distinguishing from the unpatentable transient ones.
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 19:22 |
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Too bad the transmitter isn't in the United States though, so you're still not practicing a patent invention in the country etc. etc. Well, that sucks, I patented the sending device in combination with the signal and the receiving device in combination with the signal, as well as methods of using the signal on a computer, all these people that can read EM signals with their morgellons fibers are taking advantage of an oversight on the court's part.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:Not sure what this has to do with maritime law The theory behind patenting signals was trying to hit people overseas hosting downloads of patented software for contributory infringement for the downloads of the software.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:all these people that can read EM signals with their morgellons fibers are taking advantage of an oversight on the court's part. Perhaps you can classify such people as computers?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:The theory behind patenting signals was trying to hit people overseas hosting downloads of patented software for contributory infringement for the downloads of the software. Understood. They may have a chance at induced infringement now with the 2012 Akamia decision. The infringed patents would have to properly claim the receiver though. More specifically, a system claim for a receiver really shouldn't have the received transient signal as a claimed element but only as a limitation on the operation of the system. That probably only makes sense to patent drafters/litigators. Meanwhile, referring to the CAFC case you posted above, the USPTO issued the method claims for receiving and using the signals. It looks like those morgellons fiber users can't escape method claims or well drafted system claims unless they are at sea in a non-US flagged vessel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
-
Starpluck fucked around with this message at 08:37 on Apr 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
It depends on the specific area of law you are talking about, what town you are in, what you think "best" means, and how much you are willing to pay.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
-
Starpluck fucked around with this message at 08:37 on Apr 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
Cowslips Warren posted:Number 2 is pretty important. Also, were there any notes in the box about Fedex having to reseal it, or multiple pieces of shipping tape on the top versus the bottom? Thanks guys for the responses re: the Verizon thing. It was all worked out ... apparently having a police report was the magical key to getting Verizon to work with the guy, so if you ever have a similar issue, I guess remember to call the police and report it right away in addition to reporting it to the shipper and the retailer. quote:DUI - Southern California, my budget is high. By best I mean whatever would be my best option in the case with a DUI. Do you know anyone who is a lawyer or knows lawyers? The best way to get to a well-respected one within the area is to ask for referrals from other lawyers. I would usually send people to my former boss, who has been a lawyer for 40 years + and knows just about everybody. Any other means of referral is going to be kind of a crap shoot because many of them are just paid services that anyone could use. You could call the local bar association, though and ask for a referral for DUI defense. The lawyers have to meet some qualification standards to be on their referral service, so if you don't have a personal networking way to find a lawyer, that's probably the next place I would go. Are you in LA County? If so, here is how you can get a referral from the county bar association. If not, try the county or city that you are in to see if they have a local bar association. Lowly fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Mar 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:What's worth 100k is that he's the first person to think to use it to do something it was designed to do, obviously. I was working at a pizza joint and discovered this trade secret of cutting the pizzas into 12 slices, not 8. I went independent and made millions!
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Can anyone offer their thoughts if the following fact pattern were to hypothetically occur in Arkansas? Suppose an elderly Patient is scheduled to undergo a surgery with a long and difficult recovery period requiring in-patient care. The family contacts a licensed Social Worker who at the time is in private practice as a health care guardian. Social Worker declines to take Patient on as a client and sends disengagement letter. Social Worker did recommend Nursing Home for Patient to stay in during his recovery. Daughter becomes Patient's guardian and has an attorney draft the necessary paperwork. During the course of recovery, Patient becomes very dissatisfied with the quality of care he is receiving at Nursing Home. Complaints include failure to perform prescribed wound treatments and failure to treat recovery symptoms. Further suppose one evening Patient becomes so dissatisfied that he demands his guardian be called because he wants to be checked out and go home. Nursing Home staff refuses to do so, insist Patient is getting belligerent, and attempts to restrain him. Patient proceeds to resist attempts at restraint, the police are called, and Patient is ultimately medically restrained. The Daughter was not immediately contacted. Daughter, upon hearing of the incident, checked Patient out of Nursing Home against doctor's advice. Now suppose Social Worker calls Daughter and proceeds to yell at and criticize Daughter for checking Patient out of Nursing Home. No one in the family had told Social Worker about the incident and believe the only way Social Worker could have known was if Nursing Home disclosed the information. Daughter verified that Social Worker was not listed as a contact with Nursing Home. Daughter and Patient are very upset and believe Patient's privacy rights have been violated. The hypothetical Daughter is planning on reporting this incident to Social Worker's licensing board, the Arkansas state agency regulating Nursing Home, and to Medicare (as Patient's treatment was in part paid by the program). Daughter is also planning on sending a letter to Nursing Home reiterating that they are to only share information with Daughter. Patient is scared that if he complains about Nursing Home the home will try to pressure the police into pressing criminal charges against him for his conduct the night he was restrained. If the above hypothetical were to occur does anyone have any other advice on how Daughter should handle the situation? It seems that Social Worker and Nursing Home grossly violated professional responsibilities and need to be disciplined but Daughter and Patient presently have no desire to peruse a civil remedy if one exists.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
Hypothetically, holy poo poo talk to a lawyer, like, yesterday.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
IANACL(I am not a criminal lawyer) but wouldn't the police have charged him with simple battery or assault at the scene? Now that I read back, it doesn't say that the cops actually showed at the nursing home, though. Pressing charges doesn't mean the DA is willing to prosecute. There is a PD on the board here somewhere that needs to chime in, but I would think it unlikely that the police would investigate and the DA would prosecute a nursing home patient for needing to be restrained. Did the Nursing Home have a HIPPA release on file that named the Social Worker? I would think thats distinct from being named as a "contact".
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
Hi guys, my dad was literally diagnosed with cancer yesterday, and his employer is terminating his employment in a few days because he has not completed 1250 hours of work since taking time off last year for a massive back surgery, they are citing the FMLA in this as their legal recourse. My interest is in the ADA, whether cancer would be covered(dad is physically incapable if driving to work, but could easily work from home, as he has been allowed to before while injured/sick), and what any other options may be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 11:25
|
|
|
After a discussion about illiteracy among death row prisoners with my SO, I started wondering this: Is a contract signed by someone who cannot read legally binding? Can someone who can't read even sign a contract, even if they understand it? (since contracts typically read 'I have read and understand the above') I think that it probably isn't, but am curious to know what lawyers think.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
Lobsterpillar posted:After a discussion about illiteracy among death row prisoners with my SO, I started wondering this: Actually my guess would be 'yes, provided that person has had the contract explained to them'. Before literacy was a common thing the standard bottom line on a contract/form would be 'sign or make your mark here', and people who couldn't read or write could nevertheless make a distinguishing mark.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Actually my guess would be 'yes, provided that person has had the contract explained to them'. Before literacy was a common thing the standard bottom line on a contract/form would be 'sign or make your mark here', and people who couldn't read or write could nevertheless make a distinguishing mark. What degree of explanation would be required for that? Going through each detail? Or just the gist of it? And wouldn't it be quite hard to prove that the contract had been explained properly?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
Everyone should hire a lawyer to review contracts and agreements before signing, even the illiterate. Think of all the under employed lawyers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
Lobsterpillar posted:I think that it probably isn't, but am curious to know what lawyers think. I'm curious what you think of the blind agreeing to written contracts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
Chef De Cuisinart posted:Hi guys, my dad was literally diagnosed with cancer yesterday, and his employer is terminating his employment in a few days because he has not completed 1250 hours of work since taking time off last year for a massive back surgery, they are citing the FMLA in this as their legal recourse. My interest is in the ADA, whether cancer would be covered(dad is physically incapable if driving to work, but could easily work from home, as he has been allowed to before while injured/sick), and what any other options may be. The FMLA hours worked requirement is 1250 hours worked for the employer in the past twelve months, not since the employee's last absence. (It also requires that the employee has worked for that employer for at least a total of 12 months, but those months don't have to be consecutive as long as there isn't a gap of seven years or more between periods of employment). However, if your dad used all 12 weeks of FMLA leave for his back surgery and his employer uses a 12-month period option that puts the current date inside the same 12-month period as those 12 weeks, then he would have no more available leave. That said, cancer (or the effects of cancer) can fall under the ADA in some circumstances (which is quite possible here if it's made your dad physically incapable of driving), and in that case firing your dad because he has cancer would be a violation if he can continue to perform his essential job duties with reasonable accommodations (and working from home could be considered a reasonable accommodation, especially if he has been permitted to do so in the past while working the same job). He should contact the EEOC as soon as possible to file a complaint if he thinks his employer is discriminating against him, and it would be a good idea to consult with a lawyer as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Curious say a person works from home sometimes but is expected in the office 2 out of 5 days on average. How would that factor in? This is just a hypothetical.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
jassi007 posted:Curious say a person works from home sometimes but is expected in the office 2 out of 5 days on average. How would that factor in? This is just a hypothetical. Expected because its traditional or because he literally has to be there to perform some task? It really depends, even in the hypothetical sense, what the essential job functions are. Hot Dog Day #91 fucked around with this message at 01:53 on Mar 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
Lobsterpillar posted:What degree of explanation would be required for that? Going through each detail? Or just the gist of it? If it wasn't explained well then whose fault is that? Don't sign what you don't agree with. Contract law is based on the notion that people understand or have had the opportunity to understand whatever they sign. For example, the blind person presented with a contract - they are almost certainly bound if they know it is a contract and they choose not to understand it but they sign it anyway. Excepting for those provisions that are unlawful such as agreeing to go into slavery. The key part is that there be "a meeting of the minds." One way that can happen is if someone evidences an intent to to enter into an agreement they don't understand. If it were any other way then contracts would be worthless because you could only be bound by a contract you bothered to read. Not understanding is different from not agreeing on the terms of the contract. A dispute about the meaning of contractual terms means there was not a meeting of the minds.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
Possibly the wrong thread... My girlfriend's car got rear ended while parked on the side of the street a few days ago. The car was unoccupied and parked legally. The offending party was a high school girl who claims "the steering locked up".  Anyway my girlfriend is freaked out because she just bought this car (2 years old) a few months ago and is worried that if it's totaled out she'll end up still owing money on it. She didn't get the gap insurance.Fast forward to 20 minutes ago. The high schooler just came to my girlfriend's house and said that the car she was driving is insured only to her mom, and that if she wants it to pay out my girlfriend needs to lie and say the mom was driving it at the time. My girl doesn't want to perjure herself but is already worried about money and thinks she won't see a cent if she doesn't do it. Advice? Southern California, girlfriend is 32. High schooler is a senior (unsure if 17 or 18), little girl's mom doesn't speak english. tranten fucked around with this message at 06:31 on Mar 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 06:29
|
|
|
Lobsterpillar posted:After a discussion about illiteracy among death row prisoners with my SO, I started wondering this: The doctrine of non est factum might apply here, depending on where it occurs and the circumstances in which the contract was explained. (an appeal by a defendant who had signed a document or contract without completely understanding the nature of its contents such as the transfer of property as a guarantee for debt when the contract states that it is not.) UrbanLabyrinth fucked around with this message at 08:09 on Mar 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 08:06
|
|
|
tranten posted:Possibly the wrong thread... Did the police respond to this? I certainly don't recommend purjury. Here's the deal: with or without gap insurance, the driver's insurance is just going to pay the value of the car. Your gf is entitled to be made whole, which means the fair market value of the car, not the the loan value. Otherwise, you'd have absurd situations where ssommeone who rolled a bunch of debt into a cheap car would get $20k extra in loan forgiveness. That is why you have gap insurance. It makes up for the diffence between fair market and your loan. As long as your girlfriend had uninsured motorist coverage, she'll get the same (maybe min us a deductable, which you can sue for in small claims, or better, if the police showed up and charged her with something, restitution) whether she lies or not. She needs to calll her insurance company ASAP. If it isn't totaled, for the love of god, get gap insurance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
I am going to call bullshit on "the car is only insured to my mom." Is it possible that that's how insurance actually works in CA? It's definitely not in any of the states I've ever lived in. And if it IS somehow the case, wouldn't that mean the girl was driving without insurance? In which case she's just trying to cover her rear end. Or something else totally shady is going on. Either way, your girlfriend shouldn't lie because someone else hosed up or is trying to pull a fast one. If she's going to get paid, her best chance to do so is by playing it straight.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
This is why you have insurance. Inform your insurers, make your claim, let them take over and stop giving any fucks about the other side.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
Uninsured motorist coverage takes care of all of that. Your girlfriend should file a claim with her insurance company and let them handle the details. Don't talk to the girl or her mom at all other than getting their insurance & contact information.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:I am going to call bullshit on "the car is only insured to my mom." Is it possible that that's how insurance actually works in CA? It's definitely not in any of the states I've ever lived in. And if it IS somehow the case, wouldn't that mean the girl was driving without insurance? In which case she's just trying to cover her rear end. Or something else totally shady is going on. Hopefully I'm not too far off on this, but I've heard that "insurance follows the car", except for members living together or someone who would be driving it frequently. Last year I actually had to give proof of insurance to my parents insurance company showing that I had my own insurance. State is AL on a blue-red boat in a tree if that matters in this case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:This is why you have insurance. Inform your insurers, make your claim, let them take over and stop giving any fucks about the other side. It's a bit daft to tell lies protecting the miscreant who harmed you. It could lead to recovering nothing. As Alchenar points out, there are established ways to deal with these situations. Let your girlfriend know that she should not lie for that kid and that she may be getting scammed. If she goes ahead and lies anyway then I suggest getting a new girl. It's not just that she lies, but that she lies easily, without rational basis, and to people (her insurance co.) who are on her side.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
Hypothetical renter question in Virginia – can a landlord limit the number of times per year you can have a visitor spend the night? If the lease were to say a visitor could only spend the night a maximum of 5 nights per year, would this be enforceable? e: Googling lead me to this, which is why I ask. I get it if the visitor is basically living with the person, but 5 days seems sort of ridiculous? http://rcyounglaw.com/2011/03/23/can-a-residential-landlord-bar-the-guests-of-the-tenant-from-entering-the-premises/ posted:A further example would be when the tenant has guests which stay an amount of time which is beyond what is allowed in the lease. If this person is not on the lease, the landlord could bar the guest from returning to the property. This is also a clear violation of the lease, which would allow the landlord to begin steps necessary for evicting the tenant. kedo fucked around with this message at 16:18 on Mar 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
Thanks for all the help re:insurance scamming, folks! Thankfully my gf's initial response was "gently caress that!" She's planning on calling her insurance today and reaffirming her initial claim statement (which was the truth) and to let them know of this shady business. She called the cops when it happened but they said they'd only respond in person if there were injuries or to keep the peace if there was fighting. So they didn't show up. I told her she shouldn't have talked to the girl and to not talk to them anymore.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
California I was in a car accident where the other driver made an unsafe lane change into me, the evidence is very clear on this, her left rear quarterpanel was damaged and my right front headlight was destroyed. There were no witnesses. The police officer on the scene said she was likely at fault, but only said that and never filed a police report, then asked us to let the insurance companies work it out and exchange information. Since the time of the accident, the other driver has stated: 1. I rear-ended her after she made a completely safe lane change. 2. There was a witness, name of Sean, with no last name given and his phone number is unreachable; but he just so happens to corroborate her story! I tried to contact the police officer (recorded the phone call) and he said there were no witnesses he could recall, plus the damage is very clearly in contradiction to her story. This has been a huge pain in my rear end for a couple months now and the evidence is blatantly against her so I'm waiting for arbitration so the truth will out. Now I know the law is usually pretty against punitive damages, but is there any extra remedy given for another driver lying and purposely delaying the resolution of a car accident case?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
Tramp, why isn't your insurance sorting this out? That's literally their job. Make them do it. Also no, that doesn't sound like it'd qualify you for punitives.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:Tramp, why isn't your insurance sorting this out? That's literally their job. Make them do it. Well, the insurance is doing it, but for some reason or another they couldn't get the police report and weren't cluing in that there is no report, so I contacted the officer so he could at least verify there were no witnesses. And yeah, I figured it's not going to be getting anything punitive. I just wish people had any sense of personal responsibility whatsoever. I hate when these kinds of things end up with a panelist in an arbitration hearing, though I have enough faith in the evidence that the panelist would have to be royally, royally dumb to grant me so much as 10% liability. I'd much rather be able to order a subpoena on the witness and catch him in a bald lie. There's no greater joy than tearing apart a lying witness.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
kedo posted:Hypothetical renter question in Virginia – can a landlord limit the number of times per year you can have a visitor spend the night? If the lease were to say a visitor could only spend the night a maximum of 5 nights per year, would this be enforceable? I think if it's in the lease, then it's enforceable. This is the relevant code section: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+55-248.17 quote:§ 55-248.17. Rules and regulations. Given the relatively puritanical approach to unmarried relationships in Virginia, I think a landlord could win on this as long as it's clearly expressed in the lease.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
It will also depend on where in Virginia the hypothetical occurs. Certain municipalities have codes that add to the VLTA; Arlington county, for instance, is much more tenant friendly than elsewhere in the commonwealth (surprise!). But yeah, if it's in the lease and doesn't clearly violate the VLTA or local ordinances, good luck. Virginia applies contract language strictly in most cases.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
Cool, thanks much!
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 19:22 |
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:Well, the insurance is doing it, but for some reason or another they couldn't get the police report and weren't cluing in that there is no report, so I contacted the officer so he could at least verify there were no witnesses. This is why you insist on a police report. You actually had a cop at the scene, which is getting less and less common these days. There was surely social pressure from the cop and the other driver, but if you aren't at fault then you want that report. As to tearing apart a lying witness, be careful with that thought. Your case isn't as solid as you think, even if the truth is on your side. Revenge would be sweet, but it isn't certain.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 17:32
|
|