It seems pretty obviously machine generated, and the appearance of the word "metaphysics" in the output suggests the prompt author didn't know what they were talking about to begin with.
Thanks, this doesn't address what I said at all. What I said is that Dobbs refutes the idea that the Supreme Court's authority is limited to "interpreting situations where federal law does not already exist". There's no question that prior to Dobbs, Roe existed, was not ambiguous, and was the legally operative interpretation of the constitution.
> Despite AWFUL national and international reporting on the Supreme court, their powers are actually quite limited. Their authority is restricted to interpretation of situations where written federal laws do not already exist.
This is pretty directly refuted by Dobbs. Roe v. Wade was not ambiguous and was a settled matter of constitutional law until the new court decided they didn't like it.
What if I told you that the time and effort required to develop and deploy accurate tracking metrics for every employee's individual productivity and the negative externalities that would fall out of openly stratifying worker pay based on these minutiae (worker dissatisfaction, turnover, degraded performance, poor reputation among potential new hires) would outweigh the benefit your marginal increase in motivation and job satisfaction brings to your employer?
Who are you even responding to? No one's arguing the science, they're talking about the size of the settlement relative to the corporation's financials.
Does anyone actually think the trackpoint is superior to a modern trackpad like what apple is using? This seems like a fetish object with a vocal following.
Yes, the way consumers perceive your pricing matters. If you lose a key, you need to call a locksmith; it's rare that someone needs to buy a new apple laptop.
Whoever/whatever owns the copyright to the underlying work(s) would need to sue to get the ball rolling. Current statutory law doesn't directly address copyright ownership with respect to the kinds of collaboration we see in open source, but if there's a "main author" for the code base you would just need them in most cases.
For what it's worth, the Federal Circuit, the Eleventh Circuit, and the Seventh Circuit have heard cases dealing with the GPL or some other open source license, and they all understood the big picture and were fine with it. (the cases are Planetary Motion v. Techsplosion, Wallace v. IBM, and Jacobsen v. Katzer).
> whereby the defendant is forced to share code against their will.
This remedy of compelling a party to do something they agreed to do is called 'specific performance', and US courts only even consider doing this when real property (land) is involved.
For copyright infringement, generally what's available is injunctive relief preventing further infringement, disgorgement of profits, and statutory damages and attorneys fees as permitted by title 17. The injunction and disgorgement are the killers here that actually scare would-be infringers, and they mean that in most cases what you actually end up with is a settlement.
The entirety of IP law. I don't have to think of non-competes as patents or a way of protecting trade secrets, because patents and trade secrets have their own separate (and quite potent) legal protections.
The punitives in that case were capped; the law of the land is that punitive damages exceeding ten times compensatory damages are presumptively unconstitutional, and the judge in that case slashed the suggested punitives by like 90% to put them below said cap. I can assure you Tesla's legal team knew this and did not make personnel decisions under the assumption that they faced "unbounded risk".
Those on the receiving end of SBF's generosity wouldn't want to send a message to future benefactors that their money won't actually get them what they want when the chips are down.
> Prove that competitive pressures reduce margins and unbound risk reduces investment?
Prove that any of the mechanisms you're describing are in play, in the way you claim they are. I'm sure every question you read becomes very easy when you begin from the assumption that "this is how the world works".
Show me the law that permits juries to award arbitrary damages for employment disputes creating "unbounded risk", and show me that a jury has actually done it.
> What's more fair is, obviously, working out a settlement deal where the alternative is arbitration, instead of a jury.
Ah yes, the gold standard of due process, fairness, and impartiality, enshrined in our constitution, the arbitrator. You know it's fair because of how badly the employer wants it and the fact that states are trying to make these contractual provisions illegal.
> It is better because arbitration agreements in a competitive employment market makes wages to be pushed higher or consumer prices to be pushed lower.
Prove it.
A very small fraction of civil cases are resolved by jury verdict. If the plaintiff's case has merit, the point is to get the other side to settle. You sound like a big markets guy. What could be more fair than the parties working out a settlement deal between themselves? No middleman or arbitrator needed.