I am an idiot
Message ID: 171107
Posted By: al_petrofsky
Posted On: 2004-08-23 15:59:00
Subject: I am an idiot
Recs: 37
(First, I should clarify (because the link that I gave
apparently did not work for everyone) that I was talking
not about the story on that page, but about the comments by
PJ and me regarding whether it was possible for SCO to be
"found guilty" of infringement in this case.)
Upon further study, I find that I am a vegetable.
It appears that the federal courts do indeed occasionally
speak of one found liable for a tort (such as copyright
infringement) to be "found guilty" of the tort.
See laws.lp.findlaw.com/7th/992362.html (Eastern Trading
Co. v. Refco, Inc, 7th Cir. 2000) for an example.
This was covered in an apropos opinion, No. CP98-01, of the
Nevada Commission on Ethics. A candidate for treasurer
complained that his opponent advertised that he was "found
guilty" of fraud, when the court had only said that he was
"liable". The commission ruled:
ethics.state.nv.us/OPINIONS%20-%20TEXT/1998/98-01CP.htm
> The Nevada Supreme Court has stated in its opinions that
> people may be "guilty" of torts. Black's Law Dictionary
> similarly also states that the word "guilty" can be used
> to describe liability for a tort. Other courts, including
> the United States Supreme Court, have also described a
> person found liable for a tort to be "guilty" of the tort.
> We must conclude that Mr. Krolicki's statements in his
> advertisements that Mr. Santor was found "guilty" of fraud
> by the Nevada Supreme Court are true. Mr. Santor's
> arguments that the Nevada Supreme Court is not a trial
> court, and, therefore, could not "find" anybody "guilty"
> is misplaced. By affirming the trial court's finding that
> Mr. Santor was guilty of the tort of misrepresentation or
> fraud, the Supreme Court did, de fact and de jure, find
> that Mr. Santor had committed fraud.
> Because the Supreme Court did find that Mr. Santor had
> committed fraud, Mr. Krolicki's statement that Mr. Santor
> "was found guilty by the Nevada Supreme Court" of fraud is
> a true, albeit advocative, statement of fact.
I wrote:
> What really surprises me here is not so much that she's
> ignorant of the law (she is, after all, a non-lawyer like
> the rest of us), but that her research ability seems to
> have completely left her for a moment
I'm still not sure what to make of the quality of the
research she gave, but the ignorance was clearly mine.
------------------------------------------------------------
The text of this Yahoo Message Board post has been licensed for
copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board user
"al_petrofsky" under the following license:
License: CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0
------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: al_petrofsky
Posted On: 2004-08-23 15:59:00
Subject: I am an idiot
Recs: 37
(First, I should clarify (because the link that I gave
apparently did not work for everyone) that I was talking
not about the story on that page, but about the comments by
PJ and me regarding whether it was possible for SCO to be
"found guilty" of infringement in this case.)
Upon further study, I find that I am a vegetable.
It appears that the federal courts do indeed occasionally
speak of one found liable for a tort (such as copyright
infringement) to be "found guilty" of the tort.
See laws.lp.findlaw.com/7th/992362.html (Eastern Trading
Co. v. Refco, Inc, 7th Cir. 2000) for an example.
This was covered in an apropos opinion, No. CP98-01, of the
Nevada Commission on Ethics. A candidate for treasurer
complained that his opponent advertised that he was "found
guilty" of fraud, when the court had only said that he was
"liable". The commission ruled:
ethics.state.nv.us/OPINIONS%20-%20TEXT/1998/98-01CP.htm
> The Nevada Supreme Court has stated in its opinions that
> people may be "guilty" of torts. Black's Law Dictionary
> similarly also states that the word "guilty" can be used
> to describe liability for a tort. Other courts, including
> the United States Supreme Court, have also described a
> person found liable for a tort to be "guilty" of the tort.
> We must conclude that Mr. Krolicki's statements in his
> advertisements that Mr. Santor was found "guilty" of fraud
> by the Nevada Supreme Court are true. Mr. Santor's
> arguments that the Nevada Supreme Court is not a trial
> court, and, therefore, could not "find" anybody "guilty"
> is misplaced. By affirming the trial court's finding that
> Mr. Santor was guilty of the tort of misrepresentation or
> fraud, the Supreme Court did, de fact and de jure, find
> that Mr. Santor had committed fraud.
> Because the Supreme Court did find that Mr. Santor had
> committed fraud, Mr. Krolicki's statement that Mr. Santor
> "was found guilty by the Nevada Supreme Court" of fraud is
> a true, albeit advocative, statement of fact.
I wrote:
> What really surprises me here is not so much that she's
> ignorant of the law (she is, after all, a non-lawyer like
> the rest of us), but that her research ability seems to
> have completely left her for a moment
I'm still not sure what to make of the quality of the
research she gave, but the ignorance was clearly mine.
------------------------------------------------------------
The text of this Yahoo Message Board post has been licensed for
copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board user
"al_petrofsky" under the following license:
License: CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0
------------------------------------------------------------