Viewing profile — anseljh
anseljh
HN member- Joined
- Wed, Jul 13, 2011, 3:22 AM UTC
- HN karma
- 138
- Public activity
- 80 items
- HN profile
- View on Hacker News ↗
About anseljh
No profile information was provided.
Recent public activity
-
comment
Comment #19371235
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 …
-
comment
Comment #13528720
Nope. Typography was an excellent vessel for a history lesson here.
-
comment
Comment #13526409
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...
-
comment
Comment #11597952
Yes, federal magistrate judges.
-
comment
Comment #10813678
The declassified NRO documents are here: http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/MOL.html
- story
- story
-
comment
Comment #10509342
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…
-
comment
Comment #10427691
Interesting! Notably, "Percentage of Requests Where Some Data Produced" is all 0%.
-
comment
Comment #10347994
Well, everyone would be able to use YC Research's public outputs defensively as prior art.
-
comment
Comment #10334701
Did you read the post?
-
comment
Comment #10334690
Why isn't this the default?
-
comment
Comment #10263668
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 o…
-
comment
Comment #10263629
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 l…
-
comment
Comment #10263578
Well, good thing you're not my client. :)
-
comment
Comment #10262831
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 c…
-
comment
Comment #10262819
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/fac…
-
comment
Comment #10262812
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 …
-
comment
Comment #10262769
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, w…
-
comment
Comment #10262695
In the US, the loser doesn't even always pay the legal fees. It depends.
-
comment
Comment #10262683
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 th…
-
comment
Comment #10262668
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 applicati…
-
comment
Comment #10248673
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 web…
-
comment
Comment #10240874
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.
-
comment
Comment #10225119
No, the school board should find them.