Microsoft Fined In India For Using "Money Power" Against Pirates 204
bhagwad writes "The Delhi High Court has found Microsoft guilty of using money and influence to make it expensive to defend against piracy cases. According to the judge, 'When the constitution of India provides equality before law, this equality has to be all pervasive and cannot be allowed to be diluted because of money power or lobbying power.' Furthermore, the judge said that Microsoft had to deposit a certain amount of money beforehand, and, if they lost the case, the money would go to the defendants for their legal and travel expenses. For icing on the cake, the court also appointed a commissioner to probe the matter further and ordered Microsoft to pay the costs. In an age where muscled corporations harass the ordinary person through expensive litigation, it's highly pleasurable to see them rapped for it by a judge."
Headline (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps 'Using "Money Power" Against Suspected / Accused Pirates' or just plain "Against Defendants" would be more representative?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is "innocent until proven guilty" a tenet of Indian law? I'd imagine it is, but not sure.
Re:Headline (Score:4, Informative)
Is "innocent until proven guilty" a tenet of Indian law? I'd imagine it is, but not sure.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a concept rooted in criminal law.
We can know exactly when the maxim formally entered American law: through a Supreme Court decision of 1894, Coffin vs. U.S. A lower court had refused to instruct the jury that "The law presumes that persons charged with crime are innocent until they are proven by competent evidence to be guilty".
Innocent Until Proven Guilty: The Origins of a Legal Maxim [cua.edu]
In American civil law, there is no such thing as a verdict of guilt or innocence. There is only a finding a fact for the plaintiff or defendant.
You can, in all innocence, infringe on rights in real or intangible property.
That doesn't mean the infringement can continue or you won't have to compensate the owner.
The "prsumption of innocence" doesn't take you very far when it comes to the cold hard reality of a trial.
There, the admissibility of evidence is what matters.
The burden of proof.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognizable_offence [wikipedia.org]
Re:Headline (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Headline (Score:5, Insightful)
It's sad. They even view this as correct behavior in the U.S.
It's a large part of the reason our justice system is broken with regard to the wealthy and powerful and corporations.
It's a large part of how RIAA succeeds. They just sue you to death until you are out of money and can't defend yourself.
Re:Headline (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps 'Using "Money Power" Against Suspected / Accused Pirates' or just plain "Against Defendants" would be more representative?
Hmm... representative. I remember reading about what happened in the 18th century in several countries when the courts were used predominantly as a tool for the rich. There was a rather pronounced change in government in several countries, notably France and the USA. It was messy, and all that perfectly good tea went to waste.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It was messy, and all that perfectly good tea went to waste.
We never sent our good tea to America!
Re: (Score:2)
You mean Lipton isn't the pinnacle of tea-making civilization? It gets BETTER? ;)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You call that insipid watered down stuff you drink coffee?
Re: (Score:2)
I can believe that. Most Americans think that Lipton's blend of black and orange pekoe is real tea. If Lipton's tea was thrown in the harbor, then nothing was lost after all. To get some REAL tea around here is almost impossible. If I do find some, they want a week's wages for a pound of tea. There's something wrong with this whole picture.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Headline (Score:4, Funny)
Not only did we not send our good tea, we used to tax them on it. It was no wonder they were unhappy.
Eventually, we realized that this was a bit unfair so we stopped taxing it. This was an anathema to the Americans, "How dare the British NOT tax our tea" so they threw it all into the sea. "Take that you British scum, we WILL be taxed".
The majority of the British, realizing that people who LIKED taxes were alien beyond comprehension (throwing good tea into the sea would also be incomprehensible but it's not clear whether or not the Americans realized that the tea they did discard was undrinkable anyway), quickly decided to kick them out of the Empire.
This was not easy to do. The same people who if you say "Hey, we'd like to reduce the taxes you pay" scream "NOOOOOO!!!" are hardly likely to go quietly when you tell them "We'd like you out of the Empire" so "a cunning plan" was hatched. We'd pretend we didn't want them to go (actually dear George was a bit simple and it's suspected that he didn't have to pretend) and, with a bit of subterfuge and intrigue, we could get those "onion wearing, garlic eating frogs" to "help" get rid ^W^Wthem gain their independence.
This has worked well, albeit for a brief 250 years, but it's starting to crumble. You now hear Americans using phrases like "cheese eating surrender monkeys" when talking about our close friends across the channel. Before you know it they'll be demanding lower taxes and heaven forbid that they might want to become the 55th member of the Commonwealth. Woe is me.
Tim.
Waiting with bated breath to see how this gets modded ;-)
Oh Pleazzze... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
well, it seams highly unlikely they could get this ummmm "deposit" back.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_India#Judiciary [wikipedia.org] Seams very likely this payment would guarantee the defendants never get their day in court, only bled out and locked up. While it is a admiral statement by the Judge, it probably is just like any politician the stated intent is exactly the opposite as the reality of the plan.
Re: (Score:2)
I did, they are trying, so far 2 tries out of hundreds http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37972 [ipsnews.net] no successes due to impossible rules to get any somewhat connected judge thrown out.
Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept (Score:4, Insightful)
Too bad that lawsuits and prosecutions are about winning and losing, not about finding out the truth.
Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept (Score:5, Interesting)
This sounds like "loser pays" which is similar to the UK. The concept being that the entity bringing the lawsuit ends up paying all court fees if they lose the battle. It has less to do with India being more Democratic and more to do with India setting up their system to keep people from bringing frivolous lawsuits. "Loser pays" keeps people from suing about every little thing since they end up having to pay if the suit is found to be without merit and hence they "lose".
Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept (Score:4, Insightful)
"Loser pays" also gives large corporations carte blanche to screw individuals.
Re: (Score:2)
"Loser pays" also gives large corporations carte blanche to screw individuals.
Did your boss walk by or something? Please expand on that a little.
Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept (Score:5, Insightful)
"Loser pays" also gives large corporations carte blanche to screw individuals.
Did your boss walk by or something? Please expand on that a little.
I'll try.
In a nutshell, big corp, no matter how much in the wrong the are, can wave in front of the 'little guy's" face that they'll keep him in court for years and if he loses, he'll be on the hook for millions of dollars in legal fees. I don't care how sure you are about your case, that's a huge disincentive to stick up for one's self. Now, add in the fact that the laws are skewed in the corporation's favor, it's a system that's ripe for even more abuse than we have now.
Imagine the RIAA going after folks and saying that they could fight and not only have to pay their own legal bills but also the RIAA's if they lose. No one would even think about it. The EFF would have to become very selective of the cases it took - even more than they are now.
And one last thing: there's a huge difference with an individual being stuck with the legal bills as opposed to a corporation. With a corporation, at least the big ones, they lose a lawsuit it's not a big deal - any legal costs an individual runs up they can pay out of their toilet paper budget. An individual loses and they're ruined.
For a loser pays system, I would want restrictions placed on what a corporation can do - maybe even preventing them from collecting legal fees when litigating against an individual in a "loser pays" system.
Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept (Score:5, Insightful)
Way to miss the point! On a 'both parties pay' system, the little guy loses even when he/she wins - you can be sued for something completely unreasonable, and unless the court throws the case out summarily, it's going to cost a lot of money to defend yourself, so it's usually easier to settle. With a 'loser pays' system, well - obviously - the loser pays. That means that if the little guy is cetain he is right, it's worth giving it a shot if he thinks the court will understand the issue and he is likely to win. So if you win, you really win, unlike in the US system where you can win and still lose.
Also, it's worth lawyers taking on cases which they think they are likely to win, because they know they will get their fees (which has led to a proliferation of "no win, no fee" lawyers in the UK). Presumably, under the US system, legal firms need to decide on the likelihood of their client being solvent, rather than the likelihood that they will win, again stacking the deck in favour of those with the money.
Your issue about the restrictions on what a corporation can do - of course, in a 'loser pays' system, the opposition can't run up enormous legal bills and presume that the loser will pay them all. The court will award legal fees as part of the damages but that wouldn't mean covering the expenditure of the entire legal department of a big corporation for the duration of the case.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, it's worth lawyers taking on cases which they think they are likely to win, because they know they will get their fees (which has led to a proliferation of "no win, no fee" lawyers in the UK).
Actually there's quite a bit of "no win, no fee" lawyers in the US as well. Mostly disability and general social security cases though. And I would imagine they pre-screen the cases pretty heavily to make sure they're going to win them before they take it. But still, they do exist.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't want those lawyers. Trust me. Unless it's a class action, you'll be much worse off with them. Generally they won't take the case unless it's a guaranteed win, then they do as little as possible to win it, often advising you to take an inferior settlement, pretending it's in your best interest because they get to move to the next one. Settling 10 cases a week is better money than litigating one every two weeks.
Re: (Score:2)
Except where you are sure you'll win, but run out of money before the case is over and your lawyer isn't willing or unable to work for free temporarily, even with a guaranteed payoff in the end, so you lose and go into debt.
Re: (Score:2)
If there were a legal system where individual defendants could defend themselves without lawyers, such as Socrates could(he still lost the case, it's still up to others(judge or jury) to interpret whatever the laws are, what is moral or just), so if people could defend themselves without lawye
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I can find plenty of information about the firing of the reporters [wikipedia.org], but am having difficulty finding a succinct account of the subsequent lawsuit brought by the station against the reporter.
Re: (Score:2)
Say that again? The judge ruled that the reporter owed Fox 2 million dollars for being fired?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
IAAL. More to the point, I am a litigation lawyer. We (Australia) also have the "loser pays" system (although the actual phrase is "costs follow the cause").
Costs orders are discretionary. If a big corporation sues some little guy and the little guy loses, there is a good chance that the judge will not order him to pay the corporation's costs if the little guy had a reasonable, if ultimately unsuccesful, defence.
Also, you will almost never get all your costs back (particularly if you've hired an expensive
Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept (Score:5, Interesting)
not the OP
But imagine you sue Microsoft for a small amount of money for, say, voiding your registration after updating a graphics card. MS, in their defense spends tens of thousands of dollars preparing to defend the case (this is not unrealistic, their corporate lawyers are already collecting a salary, now they're just billing their time against your case. Microsoft parades a few expert witnesses in front of the judge (or jury) and successfully confuses them. They rule against you - now you're on the hook for a huge legal bill.
Loser pays disincentivizes bringing law suits against big players. That is not to say our system is necessarily preferable, both systems have their pros and cons.
Re: (Score:2)
If it means people won't bring stupid ass lawsuits (like, say, over a graphics card worth at most $200) then I'm all in favor of us adopting this system.
Re: (Score:2)
Sir, if a company voided the warranty on your graphics card for applying an official update with no warning ahead of time that said update would void your warranty that is not a stupid ass lawsuit. The company just broke an agreement with you and likely millions of other people that would total up to be worth quite a bit of money.
An injustice to one person may seem small and frivolous at first but when you factor in that said injustice likely happens to other people as well then I think you see my point. Th
Re: (Score:2)
The case to which you're referring resulted in the woman receiving third degree burns from the coffee. That's not hot, that's scalding, and McDonald's deserved to be sued over it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's one opinion. 3rd degree burns involve the destruction of underlying muscle and tissue. I've seen a lot of scalds in my life, NONE of which were 3rd degree. I've seen a man burnt with live steam, which most definitely WAS 3rd degree. I've seen people burnt from gasoline and gunpowder explosions, some of which were 3rd degree, others weren't.
I've read several accounts of that case, and my most honest opinion is, the old lady hired some good lawyers. I don't believe that she suffered 3rd degree bur
Re: (Score:2)
No, loser pays disincentives frivolous law suits.
This is frivolous and not welcome in a court of law, this one is reserved for organisations such as the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) who's mandate
Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, it would stop me from bringing a suit. Even though I feel I have a good case, and even if there are very good odds i'd win, there is no such thing as a sure thing and the threat of having to pay no only my laywer fees but the oppositions is enough to deter me.
It wouldn't deter a major corporation though.
Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept (Score:4, Insightful)
Suppose that a faulty MegaCorp device burns Middle Class Joe's house to the ground. Joe tries to sue MegaCorp, but all he can afford is an average lawyer working on contingency. MegaCorp sends the dream team. If Joe wins, then MegaCorp has to pay him and his average lawyer. Sounds good: Joe gets more money. But if he loses, MegaCorp bankrupts him because even though his own lawyer is working on contingency, he has to pay MegaCorp's dream team. This provides a strong disincentive to bring suit.
It's even worse if the defendant automatically pays when losing. In this case, if the MAFIAA sues you, you defend yourself and you lose, you'll have to pay not only the ridiculous statutory damages, but also attorney's fees.
Of course, there are ways to fix this. The most obvious way is for the judge to have discretion on whether the loser pays, but caps on the fees might work almost as well.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen it suggested here to cap the fees at the lowest teams fees. I don't know how that would work with two groups on contingency, but it would be an idea to limit what the little guy pays.
Very EASY to fix the system (Score:2)
Public insurance for lawsuits. Government pays your lawyer unconditionally. you have your OWN choice of lawyer. It can be easily paid for by just cutting billions of foreign aid to Israel and raising the top tax bracket to 75%.
Re: (Score:2)
Is this known to be the cause of the fire?
Case 1: investigators say yes. MegaCorp pays MC Joe's fee's.
Case 2: investigators say no. MC Joe should not have been suing in the first place, he must pay fee's.
This system cuts down on the amount of frivolous law suits, which is a good thing(TM). Firstly it's a huge disincentive to launch a case based on flimsy evidence. Secondly the amount one can be forced to pay can be c
Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept (Score:5, Interesting)
"Loser pays" also gives large corporations carte blanche to screw individuals.
Yes you are undoubtedly correct. Case in point: when my wife and I sued Paypal, and the judge threw it out based on jurisdiction and on our supposedly having given up our right to sue in under any circumstances by signing Paypal's user agreement. It cost us less than $100 to file the suit. Had we had to pay for Paypal's lawyer, that would have prevented us from suing. And this wasn't a frivolous lawsuit - even that judge agreed that Paypal had clearly stolen our money, and their lawyer didn't dispute that either.
In theory a case like this one should have been a criminal case rather than civil, but there isn't always someone interested in prosecuting, even when a crime has clearly been committed. (Another anecdotal example, though not involving a corporation: my grandfather died of a head injury under very strange circumstances, and the DMV agreed that the person who wound up with most of his assets had forged the title on his sports car. But my grandmother was unable to get a criminal case opened, even for a crime of that severity.)
When the perpetrator is a corporation that can afford gazillion dollar lawyers, loser pays protects the corporation even when they are clearly guilty.
Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept (Score:5, Insightful)
I like the idea of "loser pays" until you need to file a suit against someone with unlimited resources. Personally, I'd like to see the method amended to only cover the cost of the lowest fees.
In other words, if you sue me and you spend $1000/hour on legal, but I only spend $100/hour, I only have to reimburse you for $100/hour. If your total fees were $100,000 and mine were only $10,000, I'd have to pay you $10,000 in "loser pays" fees.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In any sane implementation of a "loser pays" system, the loser is liable for "reasonable" costs (which may be less than the actual costs) as determined by a judge.
In other words, if your opponent spent $1M on their defence, but the judge determined that a fair cost would be $2K, that's what you'd be on the hook for.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You can theoretically sue for legal expenses after you have successfully won the first case, but in reality most people don't because the burden of proof then lies on their shoulders. In order to win legal fees in the US you have to prove intent to harm.
Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept (Score:4, Informative)
Our laws are complex. There simply is no simple, fair solution to solving legal disputes, unless we re-write the laws from scratch, toss away centuries of precedents, and stop legislatures from messing things up again. So... it's not gonna happen.
The US system isn't fair because the better-funded legal team will simply have an advantage due to the unavoidable expenses in analyzing law and collecting evidence.
"Loser pays" systems are not fair, either. If you sue someone for something they really did do, but you just can't find enough evidence to convince the jury of that reality, it's unfair to force you to pay that person's legal bills.
One might imagine a system whereby both sides of a legal dispute must agree to use only the resources the poorer party can "reasonably" afford. But then there would be endless legal argument over what that amount is and how the rule is enforced!
The fact of the matter is that justice is prohibitively expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the drawbacks to such a system are pretty obvious, you put all of the legal power in the hands of the state and it would cost everyo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One might imagine a system whereby both sides of a legal dispute must agree to use only the resources the poorer party can "reasonably" afford. But then there would be endless legal argument over what that amount is and how the rule is enforced!
Oh, it can be done much simpler: require that lawyers on both sides are provided by the state (and thus payed the same), and picked randomly. Naturally, allow picked lawyers to excuse themselves if they consider to have a conflict of interest, and perhaps also allow parties to "re-roll" once or twice if they really don't like the initial pick. No private expensive lawyers, nor consultations.
Re: (Score:2)
require that lawyers on both sides are provided by the state
...that actually creates a conflict of interest in any case where the state has an interest in one side of the case.
Re: (Score:2)
...that actually creates a conflict of interest in any case where the state has an interest in one side of the case.
Not if you go with the same model as used for e.g. BBC funding - where the organization is funded by the state, but isn't otherwise accountable to it. If, furthermore, the amount of funding is mandated by the law, with no option for the government to easily reduce it, and with no way to affect the payout to specific lawyers, I think it would work. At least, it certainly sounds much easier to prevent and spot undesired entangling here than to enforce impartiality in cases where each side gets defense that i
Re: (Score:2)
The US system isn't fair because the better-funded legal team will simply have an advantage due to the unavoidable expenses in analyzing law and collecting evidence.
What are these unavoidable expenses? Are any of them not self imposed by the legal industry?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but that's just fantasy. There is no such thing as a "libertarian type [legal] system." Show me one example--just one.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not a chance. Look at their caste system and how little representation the lower castes (millions of people) have. America is far from perfect but you are making an entirely unfair statement. Informative my ass.
Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
. For instance, the Delhi High Court has a backlog of 466 years according to its chief justice.[1] This is despite the average processing time of four minutes and 55 seconds in the court. [wikipedia.org]
see MS will never see this money back, because the pirates will be locked up until their day in court (year 2455) awaiting trial.
So if by democratic, you mean corporation and money wins, then yes this seams 400 years ahead of USA.
Jurisdictional Problem (Score:5, Informative)
This is entirely about jurisdiction. The copyright violations occurred in four cities, but microsoft filed suit in the capital. The judge is merely saying that if they insist on suing in the capital they must pay for the defendants travel expenses in the event microsoft loses.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not as it seems... (Score:5, Informative)
They were not “fined”.
It’s merely a deposit. If Microsoft wins, they get the money back.
Also... $16,000? That’s pocket change to Microsoft. They’re probably laughing right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps that is so, but if stories like this still don’t make them laugh then they truly are soulless bastards.
But India has the best... (Score:2)
This (Score:2)
'When the constitution of India provides equality before law, this equality has to be all pervasive and cannot be allowed to be diluted because of money power or lobbying power.'
If that quote had any actual truth to it, politics across the globe would be a lot different. It isn't, so it probably isn't. :-(
Good statement, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Judge can summarily sentence the witness on the spot and drop the charges against the accused.
As I recall, the judge would be allowed to sentence the falsely-testifying witness according to what the false witness was trying to get the defendent accused of.... so, if the false witness said he saw so and so steal 50 shekels of silver and it turns out the witness was lying, the witness could be sentenced as if he had stolen 50 shekels of silver.
I could be wrong about that, I haven't read those sections of the OT in a while, but that's what I seem to remember.
And lest someone come with the "eye for an e
India Is Smarter (Score:2)
It seems to me from this report that law in India is superior to law in the US. I never would have thought that to be possible. Now we need to get courts in America to protect the poor and the working classes. Go figure!
"pleasurable to see them rapped for it" (Score:4, Informative)
Hoyee Hoyee Hoyee Hoyee
The beat box is back on. Commence.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I realize that Vanilla Ice lowered the standards, but this crap would make Dr. Dre vomit.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Was using the term "rapped" in the summary of the article necessary? It gets rather old watching the word used so flippantly. Good Job bhagwad, you just surpassed Kdawson as the worse /. editor.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Re:Very Poor Taste (Score:5, Funny)
Was using the term "rapped" in the summary of the article necessary? It gets rather old watching the word used so flippantly. Good Job bhagwad, you just surpassed Kdawson as the worse /. editor.
Ooooh! You rapped kdawson AND bhagwad there! Niiiiice!
Re: (Score:2)
Now this is the story all about how
my karma got flipped, turned upside down.
And I'd like to take a minute, just to write abo(u)t.
I'll tell you how I became the prince of a site called Slashdot.
In eastern 4chan born and raised. /b/ where I spent most of my days.
On the
Trolling out, maxing, perplexing all cool,
and posting some goatses, nude girls from the school.
When a couple of fags, they were up to much bad,
started making trouble in my neighbourthread.
I got in one little flame and my mom got scared,
And said
Re: (Score:2)
Just making sure you know, "rapped" != "raped". I couldn't tell by your response which word you thought it was. Being rapped means to take a gentle blow, for example being rapped on the knuckles. Being raped, is well, being raped.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
We're talking about Microsoft. I'm sure many people here would like them getting the later punishment.
Re:Very Poor Taste (Score:5, Insightful)
Was using the term "rapped" in the summary of the article necessary? It gets rather old watching the word used so flippantly. Good Job bhagwad, you just surpassed Kdawson as the worse /. editor.
CS-
This is why spelling and reading comprehension are important in school. It is not just so that others can understand you. It is so that you can understand others.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Very Poor Taste (Score:4, Informative)
A "rap" is a sharp blow (like knocking on a door), or a sharp rebuke (criticism for some wrongdoing), or a criminal sentence for committing a crime. Context would imply the second meaning (a sharp rebuke).
In the second meaning of this word, it's a perfectly appropriate usage for the circumstances. A judge issued a sharp rebuke, therefore he "rapped" Microsoft. I don't see how the usage is flippant, or frankly what's so horrible about the word that it would have a "flippant" usage. I won't cover the music that goes under the name "rap", because that IS too horrible to contemplate, but an Indian judge would use ragas anyway.
Now, if the article had said that that judge "raped" Microsoft, I'd say that was a flippant usage of THAT word.
Fortunately, that's not the word they used.
Re:Very Poor Taste (Score:5, Funny)
Was using the term "rapped" in the summary of the article necessary? It gets rather old watching the word used so flippantly.
A friend of mine made the same mistake many years ago. It was an English Literature class, and we had a group project where we had to stand up and present about various poetry.
When it was his group's turn, they stood in front of the class and began talking about and reading the same poetry that we had all been required to read and discuss - making the entire exercise completely pointless.
My friend was simply reading the poem allowed, from a printed copy when he committed the error.
The teacher heard it, I heard it, and a (different) friend heard it. My friend and I shot each other a glance - a terrible mistake, because I believe we now both got ulcers from containing our laughter.
My friend at the front of the class continued, blissfully unaware of his mistake. The teacher made no attempt to correct him. She either felt it was a lost cause, or was putting all of her effort into squelching her laughter.
The blank stares from the rest of his group, who were standing at his side waiting for their turn to be over, and from the rest of the class confirmed that they either didn't notice, or that they thought it was correct.
After the group was finished, the teacher quietly explained to my friend (who had committed the error) why we had been smirking, squirming in our seats, and frantically biting our tongues.
He was reading "The Raven", by Edgar Alan Poe.
For those unfamiliar...
Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore,
While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of some one gently raping, raping at my chamber door.
`'Tis some visitor,' I muttered, `tapping at my chamber door -
Only this, and nothing more.'
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, I knew Poe had some dark poetry, but this adds a whole new dimension of darkness to "The Raven".
I very seriously doubt I could have refrained from laughter, and any punishment for laughing would have been tame compared to the amount of damage I'd do to myself trying not to.
Re: (Score:2)
A friend of mine made the same mistake many years ago.
Uh, it wasn’t a mistake... well, it was in your friend’s case, but “rapping” was correct. If your friend said “raping”, then yeah... whoops.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you just tell a story about a person mixing up "rapping" for "raping" and in the process use the word "allowed" instead of "aloud"?
Re:Im torn (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't see anything in that to be torn over.
The court's ruling does not prevent MS from pursuing its claims, particularly if they are legitimate. It does say that MS cannot try to deny the defendants their right to a fair trial. Even a guilty party has that right.
There is only a dilema if you believe you have reason to choose sides between the alleged pirates or MS. Why do you think you need to choose sides? If the alleged pirates are guilty, but also MS is trying to bully them, then both are wrong. On the other hand, while there is piracy in India, you don't know that these particular allegations are true.
That's the point of a fair trial. The rules shouldn't favor either side, so there is no need to take a side. All you have to decide to evaluate the merits of this ruling, is whether it makes the playing field more level or less so.
Re: (Score:2)
If Microsoft feels they have a good case, they should still pursue it. Microsoft only has to pay the defendant's expenses if they lose. If they win, they can probably get their own travel expenses added on.
Large companies can and do use their banks of on-staff lawyers and the various jurisdictions they have presences in to make their suits harder to defend against. Individuals or small companies cannot hope to afford to defend themselves against a concerted attack from a megacorp. This could really have
Re: (Score:2)
No offense, but I'd like to know as much about your company's decision to choose them, knowing that they are using warez and with suspicions that they are compromised, as I would about your vendor.
It's one thing for a vendor to use warez, it's even a bigger problem if the company that collects the data from me is knowingly giving it to an outsource group they feel is untrustworthy.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I feel medical billing software should be required to be open source so that every line of their code could be scrutinized.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure if you lend the Indians your time machine, they can go back in time and fix that issue. Until then, I guess they'll have to just live with outlawing caste discrimination in the constitution and then slowly working to change public attitudes.
Or perhaps you've discovered a way to fix the issue with smug off-topic one-liners?
Do tell. I eagerly await your insight into the issue.
-Laxitive
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, I see, you must be referring to the Delhi high court's support of caste discrimination. I'm having a bit of trouble finding examples of that, though. Could you point me to some of your examples?
I tried searching for '...' in google, but it doesn't yield too much in the way of results relating to the delhi high court.
Thanks in advance!
-Laxitive
be careful (Score:2)
Straw-men can break easily if you stretch them too far.
Re: (Score:2)
I see that you have spent some time developing deep experience with strawmen. Good for you.
Anyway, I'll go ahead and give you an A for effort. Let's play smug one liner vs. amused mockery again sometime :)
-Laxitive
Re: (Score:2)
The Indian caste system has nothing to do with this article. It's like if you were to complain about the American justice system by saying that the U.S. oppressed Africans for years. It might be factually correct, but what does it have to do with this discussion?
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you should write to the judge and tell him that mentioning equality in his ruling was off topic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Are you suggesting that the rulings are different if you are from a different caste?"
Are you suggesting that no such thing has ever happened in India?