Woman, accused of defrauding lawyer of over $148,000.00, charged with fraud and witchcraft.
"Double, double toil and trouble. Fire burn, and cauldron bubble". Shakespeare's Macbeth Act 4, scene 1
This one can only be read to be truly appreciated (and believed). The story from the Law Times can be read here
Search My Blog
Monday, November 30, 2009
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Intel & AMD bury the gavel, er, hatchet
Bitter chip-making rivals settle their Court battles
Intel and AMD have announced that they've settled their patent and anti-trust disputes, filed by AMD in Delaware in 2005. Intel agreed to pay its primary rival, Advanced Micro Devices, USD$1.25 billion to settle these disputes. The settlement also covers all outstanding such issues between the parties worldwide.
AMD had been the pushing charges that Intel used marketing payments and other tactics to pressure PC and server makers to use its microprocessors instead of those made by AMD. As part of the deal, Intel agreed to abide by a new set of business practices (as yet undisclosed). The two companies will also cross-license each other’s patents for five years.
The joint statement prepared by Intel and AMD can be read here.
The full International Herald Tribune article on the dispute and settlement can be read here.
Intel and AMD have announced that they've settled their patent and anti-trust disputes, filed by AMD in Delaware in 2005. Intel agreed to pay its primary rival, Advanced Micro Devices, USD$1.25 billion to settle these disputes. The settlement also covers all outstanding such issues between the parties worldwide.
AMD had been the pushing charges that Intel used marketing payments and other tactics to pressure PC and server makers to use its microprocessors instead of those made by AMD. As part of the deal, Intel agreed to abide by a new set of business practices (as yet undisclosed). The two companies will also cross-license each other’s patents for five years.
The joint statement prepared by Intel and AMD can be read here.
The full International Herald Tribune article on the dispute and settlement can be read here.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Radio station fined USD$16M for contest death
Mother-of-three drank so much water during a contest for a Nintendo Wii that she died.
A California court found Sacramento radio station KDND-FM and its owner liable for the death in January 2007 of mother-of-three Jennifer Strange, 28.
Her family sued after she drank so much water in a contest run by the radio station that she died. The Court awarded them USD$16m (C$17.13m) in compensation. Ms. Strange had taken part in a contest to see who could drink the most water without going to the toilet, in order to win a Nintendo Wii. She lost, and a few hours later died of acute water intoxication.
The contest - "Hold Your Wee for a Wii" - required contestants to drink 225ml bottles of water every 15 minutes without going to the toilet. After eight rounds, contestants then were required to drink 500ml bottles. Ms Strange is believed to have drunk nearly 7.5 litres of water.
During the trial, KDND-FM and its owner, Entercom, argued that she should have known the contest might be dangerous. The organizers of the contest never faced criminal charges, but 10 employees of the radio station were fired following Ms. Strange's death.
A BBC report on the verdict and damages award can be read here.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Thatsa lotta yotta...
Litigant wants $17,840,000,000,000,000,000,000 for poor customer service.
Dalton Chiscolm has sued Bank of America for 1,784 billion, trillion dollars ($17,840,000,000,000,000,000,000) because he said he was given inconsistent information and his checks had been rejected. He also wants an additional $200,164,000 for what he calls "miscellaneous fees".
The essence of Mr. Chiscolm's claims are that he placed a series of calls to the bank in New York and received "inconsistent information from a 'Spanish woman'" US District Judge Denny Chin wrote. "He apparently alleges that checks have been rejected because of incomplete routing numbers'".
Judge Chin called the lawsuit "incomprehensible". He has given Chiscolm until today (October 23, 2009) to explain his claims, or face dismissal of his case.
By means of comparison, the gross domestic product in the year 2008 - for the entire planet - was $60 trillion ($60,000,000,000,000). So in order to compensate this man, the Earth will have to save its pennies for the next 300,000,000 years.
How much???
The actual number, 1,784,000,000,000,000,000,000, is equal to 1.784 multiplied by 10 to the 24th power, or roughly one followed by 21 zeroes, said Chris Budd, Professor of Applied Mathematics at the University of Bath. Using the International System of Units, this number is called a Yotta. Which is how much exactly? "The Sun," Mr Budd said by explanation, "has the power of a Yotta microwave ovens."
Dalton Chiscolm has sued Bank of America for 1,784 billion, trillion dollars ($17,840,000,000,000,000,000,000) because he said he was given inconsistent information and his checks had been rejected. He also wants an additional $200,164,000 for what he calls "miscellaneous fees".
The essence of Mr. Chiscolm's claims are that he placed a series of calls to the bank in New York and received "inconsistent information from a 'Spanish woman'" US District Judge Denny Chin wrote. "He apparently alleges that checks have been rejected because of incomplete routing numbers'".
Judge Chin called the lawsuit "incomprehensible". He has given Chiscolm until today (October 23, 2009) to explain his claims, or face dismissal of his case.
By means of comparison, the gross domestic product in the year 2008 - for the entire planet - was $60 trillion ($60,000,000,000,000). So in order to compensate this man, the Earth will have to save its pennies for the next 300,000,000 years.
How much???
The actual number, 1,784,000,000,000,000,000,000, is equal to 1.784 multiplied by 10 to the 24th power, or roughly one followed by 21 zeroes, said Chris Budd, Professor of Applied Mathematics at the University of Bath. Using the International System of Units, this number is called a Yotta. Which is how much exactly? "The Sun," Mr Budd said by explanation, "has the power of a Yotta microwave ovens."
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Nokia sues Apple over iPhone
Nokia says iPhone infringes on its patents covering wireless data, speech coding, security and encryption.
Finnish cell phone company Nokia filed a lawsuit against Apple on Thursday in the Federal District Court of Delaware, alleging that its iPhone infringes on 10 of its patents covering wireless data, speech coding, security and encryption.
Nokia claims that the patented technologies have been used in every iPhone model shipped since it was introduced in 2007. Ikka Rahnasto, vice president of legal and intellectual property at Nokia, stated that "The basic principle in the mobile industry is that those companies who contribute technology development to establish standards create intellectual property, which others then need to compensate for".
Nokia also said it has signed licensing agreements with 40 other companies, allowing them use of the technologies that are cited in its lawsuit against Apple. Rahnasto added that "Apple is also expected to follow this principle. By refusing to agree to appropriate terms for Nokia's intellectual property, Apple is attempting to get a free ride on the back of Nokia's innovation".
Apple did not issue a statement, stating that it does not comment on pending litigation.
Finnish cell phone company Nokia filed a lawsuit against Apple on Thursday in the Federal District Court of Delaware, alleging that its iPhone infringes on 10 of its patents covering wireless data, speech coding, security and encryption.
Nokia claims that the patented technologies have been used in every iPhone model shipped since it was introduced in 2007. Ikka Rahnasto, vice president of legal and intellectual property at Nokia, stated that "The basic principle in the mobile industry is that those companies who contribute technology development to establish standards create intellectual property, which others then need to compensate for".
Nokia also said it has signed licensing agreements with 40 other companies, allowing them use of the technologies that are cited in its lawsuit against Apple. Rahnasto added that "Apple is also expected to follow this principle. By refusing to agree to appropriate terms for Nokia's intellectual property, Apple is attempting to get a free ride on the back of Nokia's innovation".
Apple did not issue a statement, stating that it does not comment on pending litigation.
Supreme Court strikes down Quebec English schools law
SCC declares Québec law barring certain students from going to public English-language schools unconstitutional
In a decision that will likely elicit the usual howls of protest from the separatist camp in Québec, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously struck down the legislation known as "Bill 104", which removed a loophole from the infamous "Bill 101", that effectively barred certain families from sending their children to English-language schools.
In the decision, Nguyen v. Quebec (Education, Recreation and Sports), 2009 SCC 47, the Court found - importantly - that the objectives of the measures adopted by the Quebec National Assembly are sufficiently important and legitimate to justify the limits it placed on the educational rights of its residents, however the means that it chose are not proportional to the objectives.
According to Québec's politicians, the purpose of the restrictions has always been to protect and promote the French language in the Province of Quebec. The Supreme Court found today that although there is what's called a "rational causal connection" between these stated objectives and the 2002 amendments to the Charter of the French language, the means chosen by the National Assembly do not constitute a minimal impairment of the constitutional rights guaranteed by s. 23(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
A nuanced reading of the decision would be in order. However, I expect that the Bloc Québécois and Parti Québécois politicians will bypass this step and immediately proceed to their normal hoots of derision about the oppression of Québeckers. As a native Québecker myself, I would expect more, but alas...
CBC coverage of the decision can be read here.
UPDATE
PQ Leader Pauline Marois tabled a motion today in the Québec National Assembly seeking to "denounce" the Supreme Court of Canada over today's decision.
I'm sure she read and carefully considered all 48 pages of the decision before deciding to "denounce" the entire Court.
Sure she did.
In a decision that will likely elicit the usual howls of protest from the separatist camp in Québec, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously struck down the legislation known as "Bill 104", which removed a loophole from the infamous "Bill 101", that effectively barred certain families from sending their children to English-language schools.
In the decision, Nguyen v. Quebec (Education, Recreation and Sports), 2009 SCC 47, the Court found - importantly - that the objectives of the measures adopted by the Quebec National Assembly are sufficiently important and legitimate to justify the limits it placed on the educational rights of its residents, however the means that it chose are not proportional to the objectives.
According to Québec's politicians, the purpose of the restrictions has always been to protect and promote the French language in the Province of Quebec. The Supreme Court found today that although there is what's called a "rational causal connection" between these stated objectives and the 2002 amendments to the Charter of the French language, the means chosen by the National Assembly do not constitute a minimal impairment of the constitutional rights guaranteed by s. 23(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
A nuanced reading of the decision would be in order. However, I expect that the Bloc Québécois and Parti Québécois politicians will bypass this step and immediately proceed to their normal hoots of derision about the oppression of Québeckers. As a native Québecker myself, I would expect more, but alas...
CBC coverage of the decision can be read here.
UPDATE
PQ Leader Pauline Marois tabled a motion today in the Québec National Assembly seeking to "denounce" the Supreme Court of Canada over today's decision.
I'm sure she read and carefully considered all 48 pages of the decision before deciding to "denounce" the entire Court.
Sure she did.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
