Mass. State Police & Hilter's S.S.

Can anybody help me distinguish bewtixt the two government troops!

I can only hope the Patrick Adminstration will seriously consider redressing the troops' imtimidating (horrifying) uniform. It's time to dress down!

For those who don't know: MSP graduates are dressed in their summer season caps. The first image is similar to the MSP mandatory winter uniform.

Hi Tom!

Hi, Tom. Since class ends on Tuesday and I suspect we're no longer obligated to write blogs thereafter, I'll exercise this last entry (or lack thereof) as my one freebie. If you think I need to write something, let me know; I don't want to interrupt my perfect blogging schedule, however.

Thanks for taking the time to read my writings!

BRIAN C. MARQUIS

Pull the Plug

Keeping up with my new found virtue of brief writings, I just wanted to add my two-cents to the "Nuremberg Files" controversy. The anti-choice online files are maintained by none other than Neal Horsley of Carrottron, Ga. Mr. Horsley's "anti-choice web site [is] notorious for celebrating violence against [abortion] providers." The controversial site publishes "thousands of photographs and videos of abortion clinic staff, patients and escorts."

I may be a conservative Republican who stands on the side of pro-lifers, but this form of publication could and should be proscribed as a terrorist act. There is just no way I could ever justify this kind of societal discourse. In fact, this skews the decency boundary so much that federal officials should maintain a visible presence (in addition to the federally issued permanent injunction) and impose additional oversight restrictions on Mr. Horsley. This type of aberrant behaviour is why I have been calling for stricter government intervention when it comes to the internet. In addition to this method of online identification being shocking, it is costing those who are exercising their legal rights, their lives. And this is wholly unacceptable.

But according to some cause lawyers, who are determined to preserve individual free speech rights, this is permissible. Let's not stop at abortionists, however. Let's go a step a further and publish the names, pictures, home address and phone numbers of undercover DEA, FBI or our local police detective who arrested the punk down for drug distribution, online. Let's not stop there, why not publish everybody's personally identifiable information. Since free speech is so precious to everybody, then maybe folks would not object to voluntarily surrendering the most intimate details of their private lives for online publication. I didn't think so!

I think it's time the government step-up and put a stop this dangerous and unconsciousable activity! Free speech doesn't invite itself to online warrants to murder.

Thank you

BRIAN C. MARQUIS

"Inextricably Interwinded Element"

In departing from my past practice of posting lengthy blogs, I am trying to be brief as possible with this one!

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") recently rejected Reed Elsevier Properties, Inc.'s original & modified trademark applications against www.Lawyers.com. The deciding attorney reaffirmed his first decision on appeal. This after Reed dropped the word lawyer from the renewed application. Reed maintains the website and the Martindale-Hubbel Division, offering such services to the general public, in addition to information about how to contact lawyers, as legal advise and general legal information via message boards. The PTO ruled that despite their assertions to the contrary, the site's genus would only confuse the public instead of serving them. Reed appealed the PTO's ruling to the Federal Circuit where they upheld the board's decision. Since the information in lawyers dot com was generic and contained no distinctiveness, the PTO and court "held that the offer of information from and about lawyers was an inextricably interwined element of that service."

You can read the full version at http://technologiy.findlaw.com/articles/00006/01079.html ("Lawyers.com Ruled to Generic to Trademark). Kevin Fayle, Findlaw 2007.

Here They Go Again

What, yet, another government attempt to restrict freedoms of speech on the internet! How amazing to learn that two United States senators, Max Baucus and Daivd Pryor, have introduced a "discussion draft" into committee which would restrict certain web sites to minors by labelling them .

In a recent article, 'Senators Propose Labels for Adult Web Sites', Declan McCullagh, CNET News.com, 12 April 2007, writes that the draft's purpose is to target those "Web pages that the government deems unsuitable for minors." I cannot begin to describe my outrage with the tenor of this legislation (draft, my #*&$**), and how the government can begin to insult the integrity of the constitution with this bogus piece of legislation. I am all in favor of parents censoring their children's internet habits and behavior, but subscribing to any perennial form of government censorship is simply unacceptable.

If internet sites do not register, for example, with such (newly empowered government regulatory agency) internet registration sites such as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) they could be heavily fined. (remember earlier we had an online discussion with a member of ICANN and he denied any such empowerment). If a particular web site fails to comply with the federal statute then the "government would be able to shut down" once the non compliant is reported. Or maybe the statute will enable the ICANN to exercise newly enabling enforcement powers by shutting it down sua sponte. (Professor Katsh, have you been withholding top secret, confidential materials?).

What's making this the most dangerous piece of legislation of our (N.Y.) times is the "Baucus-Pryor legislation includes no exemptions for news organizations." WOW! Frankly, there goes freedom of the press and speech. If the government so desired, they could shut down the "Imus in the Morning" show; Oh, yes, he was fired last week. (the extension of most cable news or print media are blogs or individual web sites). Say goodbye to CNN if they just happen to lash out at the nitwit junior senator from N.Y. (Hillary Clinton), or the government determines that a) they failed to register with ICANN because last week they ran a story on a sexual intercourse encounter on some golf course in Amherst, Mass. and its reporting content is sexually explict and b) just because....

This is clearly cybercrap!

More to come.

Compliance Officer or Police Officer

One of the benefits to businesses under the language of the Sarbaine-Oxley Act is to negate corporate responsibilities if a Compliance Officer is appointed to advise corporate officials of any potential federal violations, and if the potential then exist how best in bringing them back into compliance. This came about following the tragic demise of the Enron accounting debacle.

Recently, Founder Linden Lab's virtual world, Second Life, has come under close federal scrutiny when the founder alerted federal FBI agents of possible wrong-doings in the virtual world's casino playground. The founder took the right step of alerting federal authorities about the legality of the world's many gambling sites. Although, potentially, as the story revealed, FBI Checks Gambling in Second Life Virtual World, Wednesday, April 04, 2007, Lab could potentially face criminal charges over this matter, the issue of the world's gaming industry is questionable at best.

Not only is the site perhaps in violation (every avatar is presumed innocent until proven guilty) of federal criminal gaming statutes, but the exchange of currency, will, I suspect, become a target of inquiry for the U.S. Secret Service. (I can only wonder if the gambling avatar is entitled to any constitutional protections. If enemy combatants are not, then why should an avatar be granted constitutional protections? If an avatar is unlawfully detained is it entitled to Habeas review? For all those who not up on their Habeas understandings, it's about the process not the person). But we'll leave this matter to federal authorities and the courts to decide.

From my perspective, the site sounds somewhat questionable insofar as the similarities are striking to a street vice operation. If, for example, I phone my next door neighbor booky, over a hardline, with a two hundred dollar bet on the UMass Football Team and the other end accepts the bet, then ultimately both parties become subject to criminal gambling prosecution. Thus, placing a bet at your favorite virtual world casino is no different than placing a telephone bet (actually the hardline or broadband is being used to access the internet). Coupled with Congress's aggressive stance on the ills of Internet gambling, this doesn't look good for Lab.

A while ago we discussed the language of a proposed Alternative Dispute Resolution ("ADR") process, and how cool it would be to serve the interest of those trivial infractions, such as spitting on my lawn, or the likely hood of trespass to chattels. But this gambling matter is just the tip of the ice berg. You're going to see a lot more criminal activity in the Second Life than Lab is able to monitor (may be he should retain the sleazy services of the Wal-Mart surveillance team). This type of activity will only encourage those, whose identities are undisclosed, to partake in more serious virtual crimes. The time spent on ADR should be secondary to policing the area for criminal activity.

To all those Yale law professors, OIT experts, and business managers, now's the time your expertise on how best to anticipate and correct potential criminal activity is required. ADR doesn't address, and never shall, the potential criminal liabilities of those held responsible for online violent or vice actions (or interactions). ADR is moot when you're sitting in a 3 by 6 jail cell. Also, those who help design this world are potential defendants (I wonder if the civil and criminal language of RICO applies in the virtual world?) This is a wake-up call!

In past class sessions, I suggested that the world could be used to upload an ariel photo of NYC and provide terrorist members the ability and tools to rehearse a massive terrorist attack. Most agreed but took this with a grain of salt, so to speak. Well folks, if you think this is unsalable logic then just pay attention to how the world's once innocent landscape is about to turn dark, dirty and very criminal.

These avatars can become just as violent and dangerous as their street counterparts.

More to come!

Virtual Images Sequel

Just taking the time to clarify a possible misunderstanding: When I wrote in the original Virtual Images messages indicating a local registry's indexing land recordings for public review, I was referring to copies of the original mortgage document and deed. Generally, if you're like most of us, you're carrying a mortgage. Now the mortgagee (lender) in order to secure their interest retains not only the mortgage (similar to your auto financier holding the vehicle's title until you satisfy the outstanding debt) but, within the entire document is a copy of the deed, and if defects are discovered it becomes impossible to pass clean title. Thus, the geek down the street can really put a damper on the miseries of property selling.

Not only do you have issues with selling your property, but now you have a very irritable banker, who, I might add, has a fiduciary duty to indemnify you against issues like remastered deeds.

The headaches are endless!

Virtual Legal Images

Recently we discussed the prospects of converting paper legal documents, such as property deeds, into the realm of virtual digital imaging. I am voicing my opposition to this form of posting. Although it's important to protect the public's access to legal documents, this is not a area I am ready to openly embrace. Why? Well, the trust of my argument is predicated on the quasar of document digital remastering.

Let's assume we scan the deed to my (registered) land and consent to having it having it posted on line for the public benefit. Let's further say the geek down the street knows how to manipulate the OCR aspect of the document. At the same time I posted a 'For Sale' sign on my front lawn, and he made an earlier offer I refused, and after he finishes remastering the document image, he decides to challenge my ownership to said property. Now, remembering he's remastered the digital image, he files a claim in the Land Court claiming his deceased grandfather still owes the land, and the deed, in its present physical form, is a fake instrument. Now instead of having clean title, it's not clean, but rather the property's rightful ownership becomes a legal dispute, which could take me a couple of years to resolve. (may be the next time he'll make an offer I cannot refuse).

This is just one messy scenario why it's necessary to keep property deeds in physical form, in a government building, for safe-keeping. You're probably right if you can arrive at some quick, amicable resolution to this legal issue. But the point is: to keep pending legal issues from becoming in rem legal issues.

Finally, if the deeds are kept in a physical format (in those big, voluminous registry books) and in safe-keeping, then accountability become easy to assign. Remember, trials and ADR hearings are all about assigning blame. If the virtual digital image deed is remastered, who do I blame? At least if the physical deed has legal issues, I know seeking a remedy from the former owner or its attorney, or a title insurance company has known consequesces. (also legal notary crest cannot be copied, thus, a document without the court clerk's or notarial crest is inadmissible (citation omitted)). The original deed supersedes all of its counterparts!

Huh, interesting! It was a good idea; unfortunately its time is somewhere in quasar.

More to come.

Hooray for the Stanford Law School Fair Use Victory

Kudos to Stanford's Acting English Professor Carol Shloss's court victory. It seems her victory went a long way to "...push back against overly aggressive copyright enforcement." This case sets a precedent for future cases involving alleged copyright infringement and how much is to much enforcement when its intended purpose is to share others works within an academic framework. "But this is just the first of a series of cases that will be necessary to establish the reality of creative freedom that the 'fair use' doctrine is intended to protect in theory."

I cannot help but wonder just how much those copied excepts packeted and printed for UMass student course requirements, by Collective Copies, contains royalty shares. My guess, and only a guess, is a large part of it. Collective Copies makes a disclaimer on the cover page to insure all that they fully comply with all rightful and legal copyrights. From my perspective, it's possible all these excepts are published under the exemptions scheduled in sec. 107 and, perhaps we're paying royalties to those who are not legally entitled to receive them. Remember, those packets are used in the course of academics not in an arbitrary reproduction mode. Now if student were warned about reproducing those packet without the expressed approval of the rightful owners, then this becomes a legal issue. But I don't see those packets as infringements. This could be a obnoxious case of Collective Copies adhering to owners who have threatened them or the packet organizers, UMass faculty, with litigation if the checks not in the mail. This seems to be another example of an "overly aggressive enforcement" campaign by those strong and talented against the weak and in firmed. Then again, why would faculty care if they're not buying the packets?

Enforcement doesn't need to be formalized by the filing of a cause of complaint or cause of action, it just requires some overt intention from the property owners to sue if the smell of infringement is imminent. Such as their threat, as in the Schloss case, to sue to enforce one's copyrights is no longer a deterrent to lawful republication.

Finally, shame on those UMass faculty members who are being bullied by Collective Copies and those owners who are collecting royalties they are not legally entitled too. By doing this they are depriving graduate and undergraduates 'fair use' access, which, I might add, the statute affords us to "work[s] we love and share it with others."

More to come!

When You Lose the First, Settle the Remainder

Settlement fever is in the air between Broadcom and its aggressive competitor, Qualcom. See, Qualcom Sues Broadcom Settle Another Patent Dispute. These two telecommunication giants have been litigating since Carter was a peanut farmer (just kidding!). Recently, a federal judge in San Diego, California, found in favor of Broadcom in one of its many ongoing legal Intellectual Property and Patents claims with Qualcom, by ruling that the "Broadcom...did not infringe on two Qualcom patents for video compression technology." How surprising now the two sides have decided to settle other pending court claims.

If you lose the first, the indicator, all others are probably destined to fail on the same continuum. This appears to be the case here. Maybe these two should consider an Acquisition or Merger (or maybe if this fails a hostile takeover)! But either way by the time these two cease their adolescent court battling, I suspect they'll be vividly familiar with each others technologies; thus, leaving them no other choice than an involuntary merger. They need to protect those technology secrets somehow. It's obvious Broadcom has the competitive edge or if they don't, they know what Qualcom knows, which apparently is not much of a 'Patented', 'Intellectual' secret in today's capitalistic marketplace.

More to come!

BRIAN C. MARQUIS

Verizon versus Cisco?

In brief, I just finished reading the text on how Verizon managed to overpower innate jurors with legal patent gibberish. Out of eight alleged Vonage patents infringements (and several fraud counts), Verizon prevailed on five. This is somewhat surprising! Given Verizon's past history of packing the courtroom with lethal advocacy science, it's so wonder the jurors are still not scratching their bald heads. It's not like jurors to fully comprehend and digest all their scientific medicine injected by one shot, but it's surprising they found Verizon more believable than Vonage.

To that end, quoting CNET News.com, Verizon representatives commenting on 19 June 2006 "...would not comment whether or not the company is looking into filing lawsuits against other VoIP providers." This is a 'deep link' underscored out of "...filed a lawsuit against Vonage in June 2006..." from the 08 March 2007 article. My concern: If Verizon sought patent infringement damages against Vonage, would Cisco be next? Remember Cisco in their battle with Apple, well, they use the VoIP, too. This is the service they're using with their new Phone. I cannot help but wonder if a lawsuit is imminent! And if a lawsuit is imminent, would Apple step in if Cisco loses a patent infringement to Verizon on the VoIP. If this happens then the iPhone trademark would be Apple's forever. Maybe the Apple is sweeter on the Verizon.

If there's insider information, please feel free to share it with me! An Apple a day helps keep the jury away.

Cool!

BRIAN C. MARQUIS

Speech Confusion?

Recently I remarked about whether or not the infamous McDoanld's would prevail if for example some dope like myself were to register a domain name equal to Mickey D's. As an example I used the catalouge outfitters, L.L. Bean, located in Maine. The thrust of my argument was predicated on whether or not I could sucessfully register a domian site similar to that of L.L. Bean, and if my busniness was unlike any Bean product, could I survive a regulator's scurtiny.

This comes to light because I wanted to share the case law I used to springboard my argument from: L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Publishes, Inc., 811 F.2d 26 (1st Cir. 1987). Although the instant case is relevant to a trademark infringement, (defendant copied plaintiff's trademark and made parody of it in the middle of a written publication, not on the cover or back but in the middle). First Circuit, sitting per curium, correctly so, found in favor of defendant and consequently reversed and remanded the case back to the district court for proceedings not inconsistent with its mandate.

This case is notable because it's not a far stretch to think, someday, this could occur on somebody else's web page (perhaps TolandPools.com). What's also relevant here is Professor Katsh's, sitting as the sole panelist for the ICANN hearing, decision in favor of TolandPools.com. Although his decision, to some, may not be exponential, it's a case involving the online exercising of one's constitutional right to Free Speech. Not only can one express oneself online and in writing, but taking a registered trademark and making parody of it in a hard cover magazine continues the inherent constitutional right we've all come to expect from that great legal document--Freedom of Speech.

Essentially, whether Professor Katsh realized it or not, (I am sure he did!) his decision set the benchmark for future disputes not untoward the online role of Freedom of Speech and, moreover, how future regulators will be required to rule/decide.

BRIAN C. MARQUIS

Apple and Cisco

It seems, after much surreptitious deliberation, the attorneys for both Apple and Cisco have decided to set aside their intellectual corporate marketing claims and combine their strategic ploys by permitting Apple unfettered usage of Cisco's registered trademark, 'iPhone'. This conjoining of corporate intellectual rights seems unprecedented in the legal sense, because there appears to be no other alleged infringement violations that has led to a corporate hybrid of new technological ideas.

From my perspective, what do I know? What's fair to say is Cisco's registered trademark VoIP (Voice over Internet Phone ), at first glance, does not come close to the contested infringement of what's alleged to be Apple's early expected released of the iPhone, which is the graduated achievement of Apple's iPod. See the similarities: iPone versus iPod and Apple's iTunes downloadable music and podcast store, and then size this up against the VoIP. The differences are utterly striking! Again, for those not so temporarily inclined--iPhone, iPod and iTunes versus the VoIp. Where is the infringement? Are the differences so similar to the average eye or intellegence, that somebody would be confused about the VoIP's or iPhone's features or their respective manufactures? I am highly doubtful! Thus, if anybody deserves the rights to register and market an iPhone, it would be a resounding Apple.

Now I can understand why Cisco was eager to settle this case! If the case had proceeded through its natural federal civil docket course, perhaps Apple would have prevailed. Why? because whose product line is much closer to "iPhone" than Cisco's product of Voice over the Internet Phone? You guessed it, Apple's iPhone. If I were sitting on a jury, and of course not having read any portions of the complaint, oral testimony or the benefit of reading what those deposed influential corporate figures had to say, I would find in Apple's favor.

In the final analysis, however, this was a brilliant corporate and legal maneuver by Apple, deciding to settle with Cisco. Now Apple can move ahead with the iPhone as expected, and with the added benefit of having Cisco's technology & legal departments involve in the process, they can claim a court and product victory (the iPhone remains in the 'i' family). Instead of these departments confusing the issue, they now allow Apple to cash in on the product's successes without paying royalties to Cisco (I think) or stalling its release until a bench or jury trial concluded, which could have been years from now. And with the way technology seems to be traveling at today's warp speed, this would have been financially catastrophic for both the plaintiff and defendant.

More to come!

BRIAN C. MARQUIS

In a prior posting I made reference to the "Equal Access to Justice Act" when I should have been referencing the Civil Justice Reform Act. The latter merely makes it possible for those who wish court access to afford doing so by paying a fee that at least appears within everybody's economic reach. At this time it cost a plaintiff $350.00 to file a federal civil cause of action. It doesn't stop there, however, because district court local rules require additional fees for everything from the hard copying of filed documents to placing the case on appeal.

If the bourgeois folks had their way, they would move to discourages those lesser-class status members from filing any civil complaint by pricing the filing fee into a out of reach sphere. I am thinking a complaint filing, under their scheme, would reach upwards to two or three thousand dollars. With this price tag, only the rich and their law firms would be able to file complaints against us lower-upper middle class.

More to come.

What a Cyberday

Today, Elli Lilly attempted to persuade a U.S. District Court judge to issue an injunction against a website, who, apparently, are in possession of confidential internal business documents. The questionable documents seem to be of an incriminating nature to Elli Lilly, a national leader in the sale of drugs. They demonstrate just how far a drug company will go to market their products. Moreover, the documents show how paradoxicalness and defrauding Elli Lilly has been with its dealing towards the American Public and the governmental regulatory agency, Federal Drug Administration (FDA).

What's far more relevant to the cyberspace argument is the district court's ruling regarding injunctive relief when the core merits involve the "internet." Here is an excerpt from the 14 February 2007 issue of a BNA report, "..the court concluded that it is unlikely that the court can now effectively enforce an injunction against the internet in its narrow manifestation and it would constitute a dubious manifestation of public policy were it attempt to do so." WOW! If this opinion is upheld on appeal, think of the undulatory effects on similar appeals all across the country, especially when sister circuits, who have yet to take up this matter, may be looking for outside guidance.

Remember, this case involved the leaking of sensitive, internal confidential documents (intellectual property) to the public by scanning and posting them on the internet. What a case to claim "whistle blower!" Are you to be applauded for whistle blowing or guilty of the unlawful copying and dissemination of others intellectual property? Is there a greater public interest to be served in releasing potential harmful documentation in contra to the legal rights of one's intellectual property?

http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2007_02.php#0051227

More to come!

BRIAN C. MARQUIS

Just a brief posting on an important subject:

Legal Issues: Do I have the copy rights to post this intellectual material (somebody else's writings and thougts) on a public blogboard? Am I violating Section 117 of the Copyright Act? (hint: software infringment or written materials) or the First-Sale Doctrine? Are neither, or only one or both applicable here?

"ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg and Article 2B: Finally, the Validation of Shrink-Wrap Licenses
Joseph C. Wang

16 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 439 (1997)
Abstract

In ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, the Seventh Circuit validated a licensor’s shrink-wrap license. This court was one of the first courts to validate such licenses. The case involved a graduate student, Zeidenberg, who purchased ProCD’s telephone directory software program which contained the shrink-wrap license at issue. After Zeidenberg took the software home, he downloaded the information in the software into his computer and put the information onto a website, despite the language on the computer screen prohibiting such dissemination of the software’s contents. Then, Zeidenberg allowed Internet users to use his website to access the directory originally located on the software for free.
ProCD sued Zeidenberg in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. The district court held in favor of Zeidenberg because it concluded that federal Copyright laws preempted the license agreement. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit reversed the lower court and held the license agreement to be valid and enforceable, and not preempted by Copyright laws. The Seventh Circuit reasoned that a contract was formed in compliance with sections 2-204 (contract formation) and 2-606 (acceptance of contracts) of the Uniform Commercial Code. In other words, the contract was formed when: (1) Zeidenberg purchased the software; and (2) Zeidenberg failed to reject the contract after learning of the license restrictions displayed on the computer screen -- in essence "accepting" the contract restrictions. The court also compared the agreement in the case to other types of agreements that are enforceable, such as forum-selection clauses. Further, the Seventh Circuit held that the Copyright Act did not preempt the license agreement because copyright law restricts third parties, while contract law only restricts the parties to the agreement.
This case agrees with section 208 of the proposed Article 2B of the U.C.C. which deals with formation of "mass-market licenses". This section should be read with other sections of Article 2B that require license terms to be "conspicuous" (U.C.C. § 2B-102(7)) while giving the licensee an "opportunity to review" (U.C.C. § 2B-113) the terms and, thereafter, "manifesting assent" (U.C.C. § 2B-112) to such terms. Only then would a licensee be bound by mass-market licenses. In ProCD, Zeidenberg formed such a mass-market license with ProCD because: (1) the license terms were "conspicuously" placed on the software package and displayed on the computer screen during usage of the program; (2) Zeidenberg had multiple "opportunities to review" the license agreement-- i.e., during the initial software purchase and while download ProCD’s program onto his computer; and (3) Zeidenberg "manifested his assent" to the terms of the agreement by affirmatively downloading the software. Thus, it is plain to see that Zeidenberg satisfied the requirements to form a mass-market agreement with ProCD, and the Seventh Circuit properly held that he was bound by the terms of the agreement.
The ProCD case is seminal in that it anticipates problems arising from agreements formed on the Internet, which is the exact problem that section 2-208 of U.C.C. Article 2B was designed to solve. Hence, before the adoption of U.C.C. Article 2B by each state, the ProCD decision validating shrink-wrap licenses should be the standard by which other courts apply in determining whether similar licensing agreements are enforceable."

BRIAN C. MARQUIS

Hi, everyone,

The most interesting aspect of cyberspace and its newly drafted laws (very few) that pertain to same is somewhat perplexing by its true nature. What happens to the notion of privacy, for example, when uniformed or plain dressed law enforcement enter our private residences executing a(n) (im)proper search warrant in conta to the Fourth Amendment, and when Congress passes a statute declaring that every residence or place of a computer fixture is subject to immediate search by agents of social control, with or without the expressed approval of the infamous FISA court or a court of lesser jurisdiction? Nothing, because we now live in the era of computerized searches. (this is another glorious reason to dislike Osama bin ladin). Your personal computer is no longer forbidden fruit. The government has direct access to any computer they deem necessary. Instead of the National Security Agency (NSA) tapping your hard-phone-line, now life has been made easier by selling the idea of PCs to everybody, giving them access to the very heart of every user. Although most search and seizures court challenges have survived summary judgment, and eventually become precedent, where is the cyberspace search and seizure precedents.

What's meant by this? At the heart of any successful legal argument or cause of action is 'precedent'. And since, here, precedent is entirely devoid of any meaning, and we live in a very sophisticated technological era, what becomes of the system when sybercases become precedent (I anticipate the time will come when Westlaw, for example, begins to restrict users from accessing certain cases because they bear a 'red, white and blue' national security confidentially flag). Who will qualify to access these cases? Are they accessible only to those who are computer literate or a have a government security clearance? Will the government abandon its "Equal Access to Justice" cause in the nomenclature of national security?

Although rhetorical in nature, these are just a few concerns I have about the way things are going. Thus, anyone who suggests to you the U.S. is lagging behind the times in technological surveillance is not totally with it. Who do you think has had computers in their possession for the last 50 years, not me, I submit, not you. You guessed it: the U.S. government. The government has been in the computer business for so long they know more than the pros, like Bill Gates. Where do you think the idea of the PC came from? It didn't come to Mr. Gates while sipping pina colottas on his back deck. No, from the U.S. government!

Not many realize this but the U.S. government can invade your computer machine at any time and without your permission or knowledge. All that's necessary is a phone line connected to one's modem (for those still accessing by dial up), nothing else. Irrespective of your computer in shut down mode, the fact remains your cord line is still connected to the right connectors. Huhhhh, good question, what about us broadband users? Simple, AWACs airplanes can and have conducted what I referred to as personal ground surveillance for so long it's so wonder the operators don't call up and invite us out to our favorite restaurant.

Remember, anytime you make a cell call, access another computer by Bluetooth, access the Internet via the handy-dandy pocket PC, just remember the micro-waves floating around aimlessly in space (and I say space because this area is unclaimed) and readily available to anybody who can snatch them from the airwaves. Congress has all ready declared that waves are not one's personal property but subject to any one able to retrieve them (public domain). This declaration is interesting because I own many electronic machines, but, what I don't own is a wave snatcher (my wife shutting me up in mid-stream could be construed a wave snatcher), leaving the government to corner the market on them. No doubt a brilliant deduction has befallen Mr. Gates about the marketability of such a device, but since the government is motoring full speed ahead with its war on terror, I doubt we'll ever see one.

More to come!

BRIAN C. MAQUIS

UMass Litigation

Today, I filed in the United States district court a twelve (12) page, fifteen (15) count cause of action against the University of Massachusetts Amherst. The lawsuit contends that the Defendants (Board of Trustees to the Graduate Teaching Assitant/ Associate) violated U.S. Const. amends I, V, XIV, sec. 1; 42 U.S.C. sections 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986; and Mass. Gen. L. ch. 93A (Consumer Protection Act). In addition to the constitutional and statutes violations, I am pleading several torts, including the Breach of the Special Relationship and Breach of Contract, etc.

The suit alleges that the fall 2006 semester Philosophy instructor, graduate teaching assistant, with intentional and aforethought, denied me the benefit of due process when he deprived me of my property rights. Basically, I ended the semester with an 92.5% final numeric grade and he graded me a final letter grade of C.

More to come!

BRIAN C. MARQUIS