SCOTUS blows eminent domain decision

The US supreme court said your city can give your land to developers. In her scathing dissent, O’Connor wrote: Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power …

vexatious litigants

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 11 (b): By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,– it …

CRIA gets bitch-slapped, lies about it

Everyone’s favourite Canadian law professor Michael Geist calls attention to the recent Federal Court of Appeal decision on file sharing. Graham Henderson of the CRIA says: The judge has determined that uploading, downloading, it’s illegal. But, wait! It’s not true: Actually, the court did no such thing. Concluding its copyright discussion at paragraph 54, the …

The Economist on MGM v Grokster

The Economist, fresh off their SemaCode scoop, rips in to the music industry’s legal “strategy”: But even if the entertainment business manages to coax more users into paying for legal downloads and succeeds in court against Grokster and StreamCast, its problems are unlikely to go away. True, a Supreme Court ruling in the industry’s favour …

clean cars on the way?

Salon notes how the automakers have backed themselves in to a corner: With this agreement, the automakers unilaterally disarm from their long-standing position that they cannot make clean cars. In fact, they have sued to overturn the California Clean Car Law which is the basis for Canada’s action. The auto companies are now in the …