pdovy - Slashdot User

Comment Re:$1,000,000 prize to be collected then if true (Score 1) 345

by pdovy on Wednesday July 02, 2008 @06:47PM (#24037519) Attached to: Claimed Proof of Riemann Hypothesis

While you're right to be wary of the correctness of this proof, this guy at least has some credibility. He's got a PhD in math and works at a university (can't seem to figure out if he's actually a professor), and he seems to have published frequently in the past. Hopefully even if it is incorrect it will add something to our understanding of the problem.

Submission + - Judge Says RIAA "Disingenuous", Decision S

Submitted by

NewYorkCountryLawyer

on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @12:27PM

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: "Judge Lee R. West in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, has rejected the arguments made by the RIAA in support of its "reconsideration" motion in Capitol v. Foster as "disingenuous" and "not true", and accused the RIAA of "questionable motives". In the decision (pdf), reaffirming his earlier decision that defendant Debbie Foster's is entitled to be reimbursed for her attorneys fees, the Court, among other things, emphasized the Supreme Court's holding in Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc. that "because copyright law ultimately serves the purpose of enriching the general public through access to creative works, it is peculiarly important that the boundaries of copyright law be demarcated as clearly as possible. Thus, a defendant seeking to advance meritorious copyright defenses should be encouraged to litigate them to the same extent that plaintiffs are encouraged to litigate meritorious infringement claims." Judge West also noted that he had found the RIAA's claims against the defendant to be "untested and marginal" and its "motives to be questionable in light of the facts of the case"; that the RIAA's primary argument for its motion — that the earlier decision had failed to list the "Fogerty factors" — was belied by unpublished opinions in which the RIAA had itself been involved; that the RIAA's argument that it could have proved a case against Ms. Foster had it not dropped the case was "disingenuous"; and that the RIAA's factual statements about the settlement history of the case were "not true". This is the same case in which an amicus brief had been filed by the ACLU, Public Citizen, EFF, AALL, and ACLU-Oklahoma in support of the attorneys fees motion, the RIAA questioned the reasonableness of Ms. Foster's lawyer's fees and was then ordered to turn over its own attorneys billing records, which ruling it complied with only reluctantly."

Slashdot Top Deals