111–120 of 138 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does this square with the jurisdiction shopping that patent trolls do, to their great advantage. Somehow, everyone who infringes on a patent does so while in the eastern district of Texas?
Most of the patent trolling companies set up a division or the like in eastern Texas in order to establish venue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
After reading the judgement, seems like the right decision was made to overturn the conviction based on venue. But compensation? Come on. He would still be convicted of some of the computer hacking charges in other states. Didn't his co-accused plead guilty to those charges? What happens to him?
Personally I think that everyone who ever has a conviction overturned should be compensated for all time lost and costs incurred. Not because the state would be dissuaded from pushing edge-cases but because we, the people, have robbed someone of part of their life. We should make it right.
Does weev get any compensation? I get that he's now retroactively never been convicted of a felony, but he was in prison focused on protecting his corn bread for a couple years. Clearly this affects his employability, as well as his general happiness, having been deprived of both liberty and safe corn bread for a while. Civil suit against ATT? Wrongful prosecution against the feds?
He has it made, expect a multimillion settlement on the dime of the US taxpayer.
I appreciate the HN desire to link to the source, but as I reader I'd really appreciate submitters link to a good summary/analysis for dense subject matter such as court documents or scientific papers. Ideally they'd chose a summary that itself links to the source.
I prefer the direct link. The document isn't dense. I found it pretty straight-forward, actually. It isn't short, but unless you are a member of the "tl;dr" contingent, the gist is pretty easy to discern. The trick is that things like "Count one charged Auernheimer with conspiracy to violate CFAA § 1030(a)(2)(C) and (c)(2)(B)(ii)" translate to "Count one charged Auernheimer for breaking a law" and things like "See Pe…
But as long as you're willing to hit the "I believe" button a few times while reading a legal decision they actually don't take too long to get the gist of.
What I find disturbing: a person brought a piece of news to Gawker. Gawker publishes data then wipes hands clean of almost all coverage while said person sits in jail http://gawker.com/tag/weev
I appreciate the HN desire to link to the source, but as I reader I'd really appreciate submitters link to a good summary/analysis for dense subject matter such as court documents or scientific papers. Ideally they'd chose a summary that itself links to the source.
Forget summarizing the source. How about just explaining who weev is?
It's important to understand here that the judgment was not vacated on grounds that had anything to do with the crime charged -- the Court didn't conclude that he wasn't guilty. Instead, it was vacated for lack of venue. In other words, he got off on a technicality.
> the Court didn't conclude that he wasn't guilty Part of their justification for vacating based on venue was that a proper venue very likely would have resulted in different charges or verdict.
What I find disturbing: a person brought a piece of news to Gawker. Gawker publishes data then wipes hands clean of almost all coverage while said person sits in jail http://gawker.com/tag/weev
Not too many stories to cover there. "Breaking News: Weev Still in Jail"
My guess is that Gawk's lawyers told them not to get involved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I prefer the direct link. The document isn't dense. I found it pretty straight-forward, actually. It isn't short, but unless you are a member of the "tl;dr" contingent, the gist is pretty easy to discern. The trick is that things like "Count one charged Auernheimer with conspiracy to violate CFAA § 1030(a)(2)(C) and (c)(2)(B)(ii)" translate to "Count one charged Auernheimer for breaking a law" and things like "See Pe…
Well I'll go ahead and agree that for the most part many legal decisions are fairly straightforward. And even their length is usually due to dumping in tons of citations and systematically examining the various components of whatever legal test they're talking about. It's written to convince higher courts and other judges in a way that can withstand their scrutiny. But as long as you're willing to hit the "I believe"…