|
NancyPants posted:Do you have homeowner's or renter's insurance? That typically covers your possessions when they're in your vehicle. Nope.
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 23:42 |
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Ohio. Today after my accident, for which I was absolutely not at fault, i went to my car at the lot to retrieve my possessions from my vehicle only to find that they dumped gravel and oil all over the back seat of my car, destroying everything back there, including my $240 of Dominion cards. They gave me absolutely no warning that this was a possibility. Renters insurance WOULD cover this, but I'm hesitant to file a claim over less than $1000 worth of property. You can definitely ask nicely like you are, and then threaten to lawyer up. Did you take pictures of what happened? Is it obvious they were just careless and dumped stuff everywhere?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Renters insurance WOULD cover this, but I'm hesitant to file a claim over less than $1000 worth of property. You can definitely ask nicely like you are, and then threaten to lawyer up. Did you take pictures of what happened? Is it obvious they were just careless and dumped stuff everywhere? Apparently once they saw what happened they cleaned it up and tried to salvage my stuff, and the 'wrecker' who towed my car and actually did get into some poo poo. I got a call a bit ago. I'm still gonna have to sort out how extensive the damage is. Part of the problem is any really obvious damage to one side of a card kind of ruins that card. But I'll try to be fair about what really needs replaced vs what I can substitute.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Hi law goons. We are having a discussion in the Homeownership thread down in BFC. It begins with this post and is just a few posts long. I would like some sort of lawyerly legal opinion about this. As you say this is going to be very state-by-state and I doubt you will be able to get a solid answer on this that applies to more than one state. Certainly not any specific case law that is good anywhere but in the state you are in. But generally speaking, insurance companies underwrite policies based on probabilities over large populations, and that's how they make money---by collecting X premiums for every claim made. Not by writing policies and denying claims all the time. It would get pretty costly to litigate the standard of care on every claim: whether neighbors have bars on their windows, the cost of installing bars vs. the risk of burglary, the likelihood of those bars preventing a burglary, etc. Public policy in most states probably doesn't favor requiring insureds to prove they took every reasonable precaution every time a loss happens. I think you are much more likely to see policy language excluding coverage for losses "expected or intended by an insured," which arguably extends to idiots leaving their doors wide open while they go on vacation as well as people intentionally or "accidentally" allowing their poo poo to get stolen so they can make a claim. Certainly when a claim has elements of blatant carelessness on the part of the insured, the insurer is going to scrutinize it harder. So while I don't think you will see policy language excluding loss due to the insured's negligence or lack of care, you might see language that allows the insurer to deny coverage where they consider the actions of the insured intentional or so egregious that the loss had to have been expected to happen. The counterbalance to this are typically bad faith laws that require insurers to properly investigate claims and have a reasonable basis to deny them, otherwise they are subject to punitive damages that can be pretty harsh, incentivizing them to give their insureds the benefit of the doubt. Maybe the guy in the BFC thread can post the policy language he is talking about? I would be curious to read it. e. I'm especially curious to see his language after re-reading his post, since he refers to personal injury coverage not excluding homeowner negligence...I mean duh, that's the point of liability coverage, to indemnify and defend the homeowner for his/her negligence. Phil Moscowitz fucked around with this message at 16:08 on May 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
Georgia. If our landlord wants us to leave, but hasn't given us 60 days notice (lawyer said she needs to give us that), does she have to give us an official letter or email saying to vacate? So far, all she did was tell us in an email to leave in three days (and then ten, and two weeks, and then the end of the month, etc.). The reason I want this is because she's trying to paint a picture that we're the ones leaving because we're choosing to. I have reiterated in the emails that she is the one breaking the lease (per lawyer advice), but want an official letter/email if possible. This is related to my previous posts. We had wanted to not deal with her until we moved, but she emails us every week with dates to move out/what payments we'll get back (or won't) if we move out on x date. tl;dr if anyone cares is we spoke with a lawyer, who said she can't legally withhold our security deposit (thankfully, there is specifically a section in state law that says that), told her that and she backed off on withholding our security deposit, and we found a new place (a nicer one at that  ) which will be ready around the 1st. We also refused to let her show the house while we're living there (which we can do legally), which she is pissed and making vague legal threats about, but we are just dealing with this from day-to-day now.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
Ask your lawyer your specific questions like that
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
Fair enough, thanks.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Partners A and B embark on a project that involves developing a piece of software. Let's say it's a game. The partners filed a provisional patent on the specific and unique game play mechanic that separates their game from other games in its genre. The provisional patent has since lapsed. Both partners contributed ideas, and put in significant sweat, but the game play mechanic that is at the center of it was really partner B's idea. The project dissolved. The partners haven't worked on anything, since, and neither has worked (publicly, at least) on anything like the piece of software in this story. Assume that, for whatever reason, partner A is not interested in having anything more to do with partner B as far as this project is concerned. If partner A resurrects the idea, and it is successful, would partner B have any cause to get a piece of the pie? Assume no one is going to bother disputing the facts. Partner B put the crown on the original concept, and partner A will not try to deny that. Edit: The partners both live in the United States. Centripetal Horse fucked around with this message at 01:36 on May 19, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
Someone finally got Zybourne Clock off the ground?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
Sounds more like this one: http://www.google.com/patents/US20090017886
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
Centripetal Horse posted:Partners A and B embark on a project that involves developing a piece of software. Let's say it's a game. The partners filed a provisional patent on the specific and unique game play mechanic that separates their game from other games in its genre. The provisional patent has since lapsed. Both partners contributed ideas, and put in significant sweat, but the game play mechanic that is at the center of it was really partner B's idea. The project dissolved. The partners haven't worked on anything, since, and neither has worked (publicly, at least) on anything like the piece of software in this story. Assume that, for whatever reason, partner A is not interested in having anything more to do with partner B as far as this project is concerned. If partner A resurrects the idea, and it is successful, would partner B have any cause to get a piece of the pie? Assume no one is going to bother disputing the facts. Partner B put the crown on the original concept, and partner A will not try to deny that. Define "resurrect the idea" because it's probably not patentable
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 13:38
|
|
|
Centripetal Horse posted:Partners A and B Its one half IP law, and one half Partnership law. IP is federal, but partnership law will be a state-by-state proposition. Depending on the state its in, and the natural variance from case to case, the range of outcomes vary from, "Partner B gets nothing, because there isn't now/was never a legally-recognized partnership." to "Partner B gets 50% of all proceeds from the venture." Edit: There is also a statute of limitations issue that also varies from state to state. Double Edit: Look, if you're partner A, then "yes, there is a possibility that Partner B could have a claim against your product. Talk to a lawyer." If you're partner B, then "Yes, its possible you could be entitled to proceeds or some other interest in the product. Talk to a lawyer. blarzgh fucked around with this message at 15:19 on May 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
Won't matter because there's no IP.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 16:25
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Define "resurrect the idea" because it's probably not patentable Entirely possible, although both the partners' research, and the patent attorney they consulted for advice and to file the provisional patent, seem to indicate there is a good chance it is patentable. In this case, "resurrect" means to build a new product around the central mechanic in question, and possibly file for an actual patent. Mostly, it's about using the mechanic in a new product. blarzgh posted:Its one half IP law, and one half Partnership law. IP is federal, but partnership law will be a state-by-state proposition. Thanks. This is pretty much what I figured, but the partnership happened in one state, and now the partners both live in separate states, neither of which are the state the original work was done in. On the whole, does state partnership law tend to lean one way or the other on this issue? Kalman posted:Won't matter because there's no IP. Which means... partner B is most likely out of luck?
|
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
A hundred times better lawyer than me... http://i.imgur.com/V44jtUah.jpg
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Won't matter because there's no IP. Why not? Are game mechanics no longer patentable?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Why not? Are game mechanics no longer patentable? Game mechanics are questionable these days, given modern 101, though it depends on exactly the mechanic at issue. The bigger problem is that a provisional patent isn't a patent, and they let it expire and lost their filing data. They could attempt to refile but if there was any public disclosure of the mechanic in the interim, they're likely barred statutorily anyway. That probably includes if they disclosed it publicly. (And if they did refile, the other partner would have equal rights in the IP.)
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
Game mechanics are almost certainly not patentable under modern 101
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Not sure if this is the right thread... if not let me know. What recourse does a person have to stop a collection agency from pestering them about a debt they don't owe? Say for example that John Doe from Amalgamated Widget Co. owes Client some money. The collection agency somehow decides (who knows how) that Frank Smith from Associated Widget Co. is the right person to collect from, even though he has the wrong name and perviously worked for a company with a different (albeit similar) name. Should Frank get a lawyer involved to get the collection agency off his back, or can he just ignore the debt collector since it's obvious they have the wrong person? Is there any sort of governmental agency that deals with this sort of thing if things get nasty?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
Have you told the callers they are talking to the wrong person? Do they identify themselves as debt collectors, or that it is a call in relation to collecting a debt? Is the debt consumer related (i.e., not business debt)? If you know Are they calling your home phone, cell, work?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Have you told the callers they are talking to the wrong person? Do they identify themselves as debt collectors, or that it is a call in relation to collecting a debt? Yes to both questions. When I told them they had the wrong person and the wrong company they immediately started going down the Jerk Debt Collector rabbit hole ("What are you, some sort of low life who doesn't pay your bills?" "Just because you don't work at [wrong company] anymore, you think you don't owe any money?" "Oh sure, like there's more than one Amalgamated Widget Co. in the world!") etc. Lots of BS and intimidation. In addition to the call they also sent me an email with an invoice and a letter demanding payment. Amusingly, the invoice lists the person's name as John Doe, but the the email they sent me was addressed to Frank-John, like they think I have an alter ego or something. EwokEntourage posted:Is the debt consumer related (i.e., not business debt)? If you know No, it's a business debt. Amalgamated Widget Co. owes someone money, but John Doe's name is on the invoice. I am not John Doe, nor have I worked for Amalgamated Widget Co. so  EwokEntourage posted:Are they calling your home phone, cell, work? Personal cell phone, but work email. It's a small enough industry and my work email is posted lots of places so it would be easy to find. Not sure how they got my cell number. kedo fucked around with this message at 23:24 on May 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
It's not even a real debt. T hey sent you an email, it's a common wire fraud scam. They pretend they're going to arrest you over the debt, then demand a nonsensical amount of money over an untraceable way payment method (green dot, visa gift cards, etc).
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
I thought that initially, but I googled the collection agency and they appear to be legit (albeit with several BBB complaints), and the companies and people involved are all real enough as well. It seems like they just confused my old employer with the actual company that owes the debt, and for some reason I was the person they contacted.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:As you say this is going to be very state-by-state and Thanks, just got back to reading your reply. This is about what I figured. Here's a new one: I was just down at my friendly local Polish & European Import deli store, which is a little tiny place run by one guy. I went in to replenish my supply of amazing Polish Kirsch, which has whole cherries in the bottle and is really good. I asked for it and instead got a fountain of angry tirade. Not directed at me, but apparently regulators. Here's his story (and for reference, this is in California): He has a wine & beer license, not a liquor license. The regulatory body (He called them the ABC, so that'd be the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control) decided to fine & penalize him for selling this stuff. Why? Because it says "Liqueur" on the (in Polish) label. However, the alcohol content is only 18%. This is the stuff:  Instead of paying the fine (I think he said $3k plus a month of no selling alcohol?), he paid $5000 in legal fees going to court to fight it. He says the judge ruled in his favor. And then the ABC sent him a letter saying he had to pay the fine and penalty anyway, they didn't care about the legal decision. That sounds pretty crazy to me. How can the ABC simply defy a legal decision? Of course it's hearsay, so I have no idea what his actual judgement was about. Anyway it gets better. The ABC sent him another case, this time accusing him of selling alcohol to a minor. The ABC sends their stuff to some third-party company, who puts a date stamp and case number on it and sends it to him. Apparently the alleged sale took place 14 months before they sent him the letter, and there's a 12-month statute of limitations. To get around that, the ABC re-used the case number for the case of the Kirsch issue, which was more recent. Furthermore, they could not furnish a receipt for the sale, and also claimed that a specific brand of beer had been sold (some porter, I don't remember the exact name) which he says he hasn't sold in more than six years. So basically his position is that the ABC is trying to gently caress him for taking them to court, he is out probably $10k in legal fees to fight them, and he only makes about $6k a year in profits on sales of alcohol. What I don't get: how can the ABC simply ignore a legal decision? Can my friend the angry store owner prevail against them? Is this one of those examples of statutory law, where intent (mens rea) defense is worthless because all they care about is actual violation of the letter of the law, irrespective of intent? Is the California ABC known for being evil? Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 00:45 on May 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
Can't answer most of it. There are attorneys who specialize in ABC law in CA and he probably needs to talk to them. Selling alcohol to a minor is a strict liability offense however.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
My sister wrecked her car by driving into a field off of a highway. She was taken to the hospital with minor injuries and the car was turned over to my dad 30-45 minutes after the accident. My dad drove down to the hospital while the officer followed him and arrived about an hour and a half after the accident. The officer investigated it as a DUI and suspected she was under the influence. They got a search warrant for her blood and it took about 1 hour to withdraw because the phlebotomist could not find a vein. The preliminary hearing was scheduled for the following morning. The case was dismissed because there was "a lack of police presence" (idk what this means) and the police/court could not prove she was behind the wheel. This seems like a pretty basic thing to gently caress up and caused some physical and emotional trauma, is there anything she can do besides being thankful?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
Here's a fun IP situation, involving this patent. I've only just heard about this and skimmed it, but it appears to be 1. patenting a general statistical method 2. patenting a general statistical method that's been around and in common use since maybe the mid 80s. The person who linked me it said the background section reads like they read a certain book published in 1962 and then were frozen in time. So, a) can general statistical methods be patented, b)is that what this patent is doing, c) how did this not get rejected given the decades of prior art and d) is it normal for patents to have this many grammatical errors?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
Yeah she should sue the police officer for not showing up for court
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
I'm more looking for an explanation on why it was dismissed after her being arrested and forced to give blood at the hospital (the prosecutor and judge answered none of this). The only thing I can think of is that the officer arrived after my sister left for the hospital and he lost possession of the vehicle when he gave it to my dad. im gay fucked around with this message at 01:54 on May 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Here's a fun IP situation, involving this patent. I've only just heard about this and skimmed it, but it appears to be This is what you're talking about? 1. A system for displaying search results of a search of a personal communication network, the personal communication network including a plurality of members, the system comprising: at least one processor programmed to: gather explicit personal-communication-network data from information entered on the personal communication network; gather implicit personal-communication-network data from activities conducted on the personal communication network, wherein the implicit personal-communication-network data includes historical data describing interactions of the personal-communication-network members within the personal communications network; search the gathered explicit and implicit personal-communication-network data for a key word or phrase identified by a party conducting the search to identify at least one personal-communication-network member related to the key word or phrase, wherein the search includes making inferences about at least one personal-communication-network member based upon the key word or phrase; and display results of the search by: showing the at least one personal-communication-network member that is identified by the search; showing how the party conducting the search is linked to the at least one personal-communication-network member identified by the search by visually depicting the degree of separation in the personal communication network between the party conducting the search and the at least one personal-communication-network member; and showing at least one field of interest linking the party conducting the search to the at least one personal-communication-network member identified by the search.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
im gay posted:My sister wrecked her car by driving into a field off of a highway. She was taken to the hospital with minor injuries and the car was turned over to my dad 30-45 minutes after the accident. My dad drove down to the hospital while the officer followed him and arrived about an hour and a half after the accident. The officer investigated it as a DUI and suspected she was under the influence. They got a search warrant for her blood and it took about 1 hour to withdraw because the phlebotomist could not find a vein. If this was in California, it may not matter. With a felony here, the DA has 10 days to do a preliminary hearing. At the prelim, the DA must prove there is probable cause to believe the defendant did the offense. This means they must prove both that the person was driving and that the BA was >.08. However, if they lose the prelim (or it is dismissed), they get another bite at the apple and can refile. edit: Why the gently caress does she not have a goddamn lawyer who is explaining this poo poo? nm fucked around with this message at 02:06 on May 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:This is what you're talking about? Yeah. It's describing a bundle of computerized data collection and reporting methods (some for SNA, some traditional) that have been around for a long time. Heck, the actual quantitative and visualization methods that are involved are downright outdated. Programs that do the visualization and computation of this sort of thing are old enough that their websites look like this. The listserv of SNA researchers who linked it to me are cycling between bemusement at how old/bad everything in it is and concern about patent trolls blocking their work. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 02:21 on May 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
nm posted:edit: Why the gently caress does she not have a goddamn lawyer who is explaining this poo poo? She did and the lawyer said that there almost certainly won't be a refile because the officer hosed up the procedure somewhere along the way.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Yeah. It's describing a bundle of computerized data collection and reporting methods (some for SNA, some traditional) that have been around for a long time. Heck, the actual quantitative and visualization methods that are involved are downright outdated. Programs that do the visualization and computation of this sort of thing are old enough that their websites look like this. The listserv of SNA researchers who linked it to me are cycling between bemusement at how old/bad everything in it is and concern about patent trolls blocking their work. The filing date is 2004, so that's not entirely surprising. quick review of the file wrapper indicates that the examiner thought that the "showing at least one field of interest linking the party conducting the search to the at least one personal-communication-network member identified by the search" wasn't in the prior art
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
nm posted:If this was in California, it may not matter. With a felony here, the DA has 10 days to do a preliminary hearing. At the prelim, the DA must prove there is probable cause to believe the defendant did the offense. This means they must prove both that the person was driving and that the BA was >.08. However, if they lose the prelim (or it is dismissed), they get another bite at the apple and can refile. Lmao even when you quote a guy named Im gay it says "im gay"
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
im gay posted:Some stuff He's probably used to it but that's still pretty entertaining.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
kedo posted:I thought that initially, but I googled the collection agency and they appear to be legit (albeit with several BBB complaints), and the companies and people involved are all real enough as well. It seems like they just confused my old employer with the actual company that owes the debt, and for some reason I was the person they contacted. If you don't owe the debt, then tell them to go gently caress themselves and that you won't pay. If they get sufficiently bad, you might have a claim for harassment, depending on your state laws. And maybe your state has more expansive laws that cover business debt collection, as the FDCPA and a lot of state versions don't cover business debts. quote:This seems like a pretty basic thing to gently caress up and caused some physical and emotional trauma, is there anything she can do besides being thankful? quote:He says the judge ruled in his favor. And then the ABC sent him a letter saying he had to pay the fine and penalty anyway, they didn't care about the legal decision. quote:Can my friend the angry store owner prevail against them?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:The filing date is 2004, so that's not entirely surprising. OK, thanks! That in particular is something that even facebook does internally, without any SNA -it's part of how they do stuff like recommend friends and identify common traits. I'll not worry about it and let the researchers with the existing patents and grants and $$$ figure it all out.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:This is hard to believe. He actually had the letters handy, although I did not read them because at that point my goal was to escape the store without angering the only man I know in my town who can sell me a decent piroshki. At the end there I was standing in the doorway, trying to slowly close the door and nod, and he just kept talking to me while my frozen food slowly thawed in the bag. His problem with fighting the next one is the legal cost, but I get the impression he's going to do it, because this man has been enfuriated by the unfairness of the legal process. He thinks that some specific person at the ABC is upset that he fought them in court and won, and is now determined to punish him by engaging in additional bullshit. He is also angry that he has to pay the ABC $2k a year for his license. I felt bad for him but mostly I just wanted some kielbasa, mustard, and the best kirsch I've ever tasted. I had to go without the kirsch. Goddammit.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 23:42 |
|
|
In my experience, most controlled buys in this state are done by local cops and the nerdiest police explorers, not the ABC.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 03:27
|
|