231–240 of 358 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would like to invest in this idea. Food delivery is hot, and we need to disrupt the entertainment industry!
You just write the app that matches popcorn providers with popcorn buyers in their area and charge a 2x markup - 5x during popcorn surges!
As a former grokoholic, I must say all this heavy-duty legal drama makes me miss Groklaw and pj.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Until the facts of the case come out, don't fall into the dangerous dark hole of fully buying into either story. The other day I booted my old galaxy s3 to put a new ROM on it and turn it into a dashcam. I found on it that google drive had offline backed-up some documents from a company I had worked at several years ago, and no longer did. Should I be sued for trade secret theft?
I don't find this to be the same. What you did could be defended easily by saying it was an accident and you behavior would have been nonmalicious. You didn't purposely back up some old files, start a new company with the same exact tech from those said files then sell the new company 2 months later for a cool 680mill. If you did that then yes your old employ would definitely have a case against you. If your story is…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those shows are pretty interesting. The judges aren't real judges (though most of them were judges in the past). You might wonder, as I did, why on earth defendants who are often obviously in the wrong, would agree to go on the show. The way they often work is if the plaintiff wins their judgement fee is paid by the producers of the show (not the defendant). If the defendant wins both parties receive an appearance fe…
Judge Caprio disagrees. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC59KhIPOR0Jj653dC4laEJw
Edit: I'd like to add that the Crimetown podcast about Providence, Rhode Island is fantastic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's good for everyone that the police can't skirt around the rules of discovery and present 'last minute evidence' that denies peoples' right to a free trial, yes.
The context here is civil cases (I think the GP means "respondent" rather than "defendant"?)
A lot of times you'll even see official documents not really pick a side on the question of terminology. They'll say things like "defendant/respondent" or "petitioner/plaintiff".
Judge Alsup: "If your guy is involved in criminal activity and has to have criminal lawyers of the caliber of these two gentlemen, who are the best, well, okay they got the best. But it’s a problem I can’t solve for you. And if you think I’m going to cut you some slack because you’re looking at—your guy is looking at jail time, no. They [Waymo] are going to get the benefit of their record. And if you don’t deny it—if…
Is it normal or appropriate for a judge to make assumptions about a defendant's guilt based on the lawyers they hire to represent them?
It is surprising that Google did not push the court to appoint a third party discovery firm to handle the device imaging process and to provide a report to the court. Maybe both parties' intense desire for privacy in this matter has driven Google to this strategy. The seeming ludicrousness of the result - Alsup's "go try again, harder this time" - is not caused by this case's parties playing badly. It is caused by po…
This judge is mighty impressive, and since it's so much in fashion these days to be suspicious of institutions, I want to highlight this passage: THE COURT: If you all keep insisting on redacting so much information, like -- and you're the guilty one on that, Mr. Verhoeven -- then arbitration looks better and better. Because I'm not going to put up with it. If we're going to be in a public proceeding, 99 percent of w…
Sounds like this and many other conflicts Google had with Mr. Lewandowsky over the years should have been dealt with in arbitration. This just looks like Google acting out a vendetta against Mr. Lewandowsky. They tolerated his actions when he worked for them and even after he left to work for himself, but turned against him once he joined a competitor.
While on paper, it doesn't appear that Mr. Lewandowsky is a saint, Google doesn't look good here either. Google's behavior here should give any engineer pause about considering Google as a place to work. California doesn't allow non-compete agreements, and this looks like Google attempting to achieve the effects of a non-compete through litigation. "If we can't hire and keep Mr. Lewandowsky, then we'll make sure our competitors can't either."